Friday, October 22, 2004
[1] ß Discussion between Peter
Stephenson and Paul Prueitt
[3] ß Discussion on the Adi framework for knowledge processors
White Paper on Incident Information Orb
Architecture (IIOA) à
Adi Structural Ontology Part I
à
ß in response to previous bead [7]
Paul,
I am now working with the terms "instance of aspect" and "indicator of aspect" which may coincide but do not have to.
Indicators are encountered when deriving the ontology from data, whereas instantiations may be total inventions verified by trial and error during the application of ontology in cognition. We may use indicators as instances, but don't have to. An invented and verified instance may be discovered later as indicator by an ontology researcher.
Comment from Paul
This is a most excellent
delineation of technical terminology.
Technologies like n-gram analysis, latent semantic indexing, and NdCore
conceptual roll up are generalized in the suite of tools that Nathan and I have
incorporated into the in memory Ontology referential base (In-Orb) technology. Using this nine-step actionable process
model we can easily instrument the parsing of text in many different types of
ways.
You define three layers of
abstraction in the Adi structured ontology:
“Elements of aspect sets are
the contents of frames at three layers of
abstraction:
1. substructural frames (associated with vowels and consonants)
2. superconcept frames (associated with word stems)
3. interest frames, functionality
frames and situation frames
(associated with text in social discourse)
<end quote>
The substructural ontology
gives us a target for instrumentation and thus from this targeted measurement
we are able to pull a means to encode the Orb sets, { < a, r, b> }, and
convolve the subsetting data mining processes to produce subject matter
indicators are the level of the superconcept frames and at the level of
interest/functionality/situation frames.
<end comment>
The object view (static view) is a different aspect in the aspect set of views {dynamic, static}. The object view has its legitimate place as an independent aspect, although there is symmetry to the other aspect (dynamic view = process view) in the same set.
Comment from Paul
Perhaps this symmetry also
includes an entanglement. The symmetry
in natural science often leads into an apparently chaotic path resulting in a
delay of the flow of information or energy to a restful equilibrium. Many quantum neuroscientists suggest,
starting with Eccles, that this delay is the point at which the mind body
interface becomes controllable by the human will. The notion of anticipatory mechanisms arises at this point (see
the book on Anticipatory Systems by Robert Rosen (1987?).
<end comment>
The “entanglement/symmetry” is much clearer with the aspects {closed, open}. They do share something I can call boundary.
The set {self, engaged} has a name, too: engagement.
But the rest of the creatures are different.
What is elusive, maybe cloaked, is the name of the thing that can be a process or an object. All we have is these two views of it. We don't know what it is. I know the pair "manifestation/domain," but I don't know what thing they are aspects of.
Element is the static view of the
unimaginable thing whose dynamic view is assignment.
Domain is the static view of the unimaginable thing whose dynamic view is
manifestation.
Order is the static view of the unimaginable thing whose dynamic view is containment.
The dynamic-static permutations of Q rows 5 to 8 are views, but they don't say anything about the nature of the “guys” behind dynamic/static or objects/processes. Views() and processes() are just facets of busy substructural frames. Superconcept views are derived from them. The way superconcept frames and instantiate() work will become clearer with the planned examples.
Could "global" and "local" not be elementary aspects, but effects of higher-layer frames? Process can be local or global. Object can be local or global. I will write about the nature of space and time tomorrow, God willing.
Tom