Bernard Vatant wrote:
>Bottom line :
>Binding separately developed but overlapping ontologies will need
>non-ambiguous stable binding points. Topic Maps people call that Published
> Subject Indicators.
(At the risk of being grievously outspoken, opinionated, re-opening old
wounds, and so forth...)
Not necessarily. It does require *negotiation* of degree of equivalence, or
measure of similarity of concepts for the purposes of that particular
agreement to communicate.
There are aslo deep, future, ethico-political issues tucked away in that
assertion of need, on the assumption that Topic Maps will become/are
becoming a significant technology in global human affairs. (And from what I
know of the process, everyone is so beloved of mad-dash development of the
technology that I am uncertain as to whether anyone in that group could
possibly have had the time to consider those issues fully.)
<rant severity="Gee, I wish I didn't have to...">
I don't agree with cultural imperialism;
I do believe that *simple* mechanisms of cultural compromise can often
result in losses for both parties;
I don't believe that relinquishing the idea of concepts as theories is a
good idea long term, particularly in respect of innovation;
I would love to see someone nail down the PSI for 'vagueness' first, so
that we can all point at it together with a percentage indicator when none
of us agree completely about any other PSI we're pointing at later on.
How do I know that a particular PSI I've created because I couldn't find any
other PSI that expressed what I needed to have someone else agree about will
be construed in exactly the same manner by anyone else?
Will I need a Topic Map of the PSIs so I can find a PSI on the Web that
suits my purposes?
Will I need a Topic Map of Topic Maps of PSIs...?
I know the technology well, I know its advantages and its limitations.
I know that in most senses Topic Maps is still a prototypical technology,
and that therefore I am not asking that they be the complete solution to
Life, The Universe, and Everything, all at once, now.
However, I would respectfully request of the Topic Maps standard development
community that they look very hard at the question, "Is there a better way
of doing X?" all the way down the line, not just for the sake of more
efficient algorithms, and not rush things.
I want these things to improve the quality of users' lives.
Faith without due consideration is dangerous.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Vatant" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal
> Alex, Jack and all
> Speaking of Semantic Community Web ...
> Jack and other people on this forum keep feeding the list with very
> This feeding is indeed one of my main sources to augment the semantopic
> For those who wouldn't know yet about it, see www.universimmedia.com
> For example, DAML and Frank van Hermelen have been included for a while
> respectively at
> I've not included yet Alex and TouchGraph, but will do it ASAP. I've
> with TouchGraph and really like it!
> One thing I wonder is why people there would not like to add direcly their
> resources to this data base, since semantopic is an open collaborative
> project, and in fact, it's thought from the beginning to be kind of
> Community Web Index (if not Portal)
> A resource included in the semantopic map is linked to relative resources,
> and makes much more sense there than simply included in a message soon
> buried deep in a forum archives if you did not bookmark properly!
> Getting an user login is easy. Just contact me. Before the end of the
> we'll have a new user interface, much more friendly and easy to use. Hope
> that will help collaborators to step in.
> About below quotation by Jack. I feel completely tuned with the notion
> developed by many people lately that we have a kind of equivalence "web
> community" <=> "collaborative ontology".
> That reminds me, Jack, the "famous" debate where we met one year ago on
> topicmap mailing list.
> http://www.infoloom.com/pipermail/topicmapmail/2000q3/000085.html and
> following thread. Still relevant IMO.
> And from recent exchanges here and there, I would add now "semantic web"
> that equivalence list. Meaning there will be as many "semantic webs" as
> communities" and matching "collaborative ontologies". Of course
> and ontologies overlap, since every one of us belongs to many communities
> (familial, regional, professional, technical, business, market, cultural,
> interest, ... )
> Bottom line :
> Binding separately developed but overlapping ontologies will need
> non-ambiguous stable binding points. Topic Maps people call that Published
> Subject Indicators. In the frame of new TopicMaps.Org organization in
> a Technical Committee on Published Subjects is presently in the process of
> approval. As soon as all that is official (should be one or two weeks from
> now), I'll make an announcement here.
> You can see the draft charter for this committee at
> Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content"
> ----- Message d'origine -----
> De : "Alex Shapiro" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> À : <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
> Envoyé : samedi 8 septembre 2001 08:59
> Objet : Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal
> > Jack,
> > Have you heard of Frank van Harmelen?
> > He is of the editors of the DAML+OIL specification.
> > I especially like him for this paper:
> > --Alex
> > At 10:11 PM 9/7/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > While looking hard at DAML/OIL as the candidate detailed knowledge
> > representation scheme for Nexist, I have run into numerous very
> > web pages. This is one such page, all starting by surfing from
> > http://www.daml.org
> > http://www9.org/w9cdrom/134/134.html
> > "Community web portals serve as portals for the information needs of
> > particular communities on the web. We here discuss how a comprehensive
> > flexible strategy for building and maintaining a high-value community
> > portal has been conceived and implemented. The strategy includes
> > collaborative information provisioning by the community members. It is
> > based on an ontology as a semantic backbone for accessing information
> > the portal, for contributing information, as well as for developing
> > maintaining the portal. We have also implemented a set of
> > tools that have facilitated the construction of our show case - the
> > community web portal of the knowledge acquisition community."
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-IIemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure all your Web servers now: Get your FREE Guide and learn to: DEPLOY THE LATEST ENCRYPTION,
DELIVER TRANSPARENT PROTECTION, and More!
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 09:15:32 PDT