Tuesday, August
31, 2004
Manhattan Project to Integrate Human-centric Information Production
Ontology referential base (Orb) basic Notational Paper (2003)
Previous highly related beads [43]. [44] à
A common language underlying Readware and InOrb Technology
BCNGroup Founding Committee
We would like to have Drs Ballard and Sowa and a few others make some comments.
Individual knowledge scientists do often consider ourselves to be islands. In our isolation we are separated from the scholarship that has been brought to bear on the core issues of knowledge representation. This separation is an understandable illusion. A National Project will change this and help form the community of knowledge scientists and advance this work, so necessary for national security.
The special project, at one of the agencies, is the next step towards the Manhattan-type National Project.
In order for Readware Provenance (TM) to actually work as we have envisioned, the weak spots in the theory has to be revealed so that work arounds can be designed ... thus making good use of human workers.
The thing that is most important in your note has to do with what Krieg is talking about in his reference to Maturana's work on :
http://www.ontologystream.com/area1/MemeticOntology/biologicalComputing.doc
in particular the notational capture of relations, locally defined and not organized into wholes..... or as Krieg said:
"The key to biological computing, at least
from the neuro-physiological standpoint, seems to be ‘relations’. "
This local information is what Ballard and I wish to encode, and leave the eventual organization power of a good question to create a formative expression “from the substructural ontology”.
Polylogics or micro theories or something else has to be present to work the ambiguation/disambiguation issue that is always present during the formative process. This formative process is modeled in many ways, my Process Compartment Hypothesis (PCH) being one of them.
Nathan is trying to describe how Orbs over categoricalAbstractions (cA) works this ambiguation/disambiguation issue (see [18] in the InOrb bead thread)
The science needs to shine here, and this means that the principles that Krieg are referring to must be part of the discussion.
After all, natural language does form in specific ways that are then revealed in the Readware letter semantics, imperfectly yes, but zeroing in on something specific to natural reality.
One can then conjecture that there is a limiting process where perfection might be achieved. Ballard has a lot to say about this limiting process.
Each community expresses itself differently, and as Pribram and Bradley point out, there are stresses in how language is formed in real time that reveal to members of a single community the intimacy of communication.
It is time that the IC has a technology that can
measure these stresses.
Director
BCNGroup.org Inc
703-981-2676