RE: [unrev-II] "Trees of Knowledge" Map vs. DKR Enables Knowledge Mapping?

From: Gil Regev (gil.regev@epfl.ch)
Date: Fri Jul 07 2000 - 07:00:45 PDT

  • Next message: Jack Park: "[unrev-II] Another wiki of interest"

    Hi Jack,

    There are a few other important points in the products Trivium have:

    1. UMap takes a set of keywords you're searching for and gives you a
    graphical representation of the results, but more importantly, I think, it
    represents all the additional keywords it found in the pages containing the
    original keywords and the relationships between these keywords. This helps
    the users to expand their understanding of a subject matter by helping them
    find new concepts (keywords).

    2. Gingo is about mapping peoples' skills. Levy's and Authier's book about
    knowledge trees was about fighting what the french call exclusion, the fact
    that the unemployed become excluded from society. Knowledge trees are
    supposed to give a sense of what it is they know and start looking at how to
    improve themselves by learning what they don't already know. The authors
    also describe how "knowledge" can become a currency that can be exchanged.
    You exchange "knowledge" with others in order to get recognition and
    possibly future "Knowledge". I am not sure that the term "Knowledge" is
    appropriate in this context if we define it as something that exists only in
    the context of a person. In this sense you can only exchange information but
    not knowledge.

    3. There's also the concept of "patents" which are kind of exams that you
    create in order to test other peoples' knowledge. Interestingly, you get a
    "blason" when you conceive an exam. The Knowledge tree of an individual is
    the tree of "blasons" that the individual has accumulated. The knowledge
    tree of an organization is more complex and normally consists of the
    accumulation of the individuals' or departments' knowledge trees.

    The thing I have a problem with with regard to both these products has to do
    with their fixed representation that is decided by the software rather than
    by the user. In some ways it defeats constructivism because it prevents
    users from creating their own representations. Otherwise, these are very
    very interesting products.

    Gil
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jack Park [mailto:jackpark@verticalnet.com]
      Sent: vendredi, 30. juin 2000 17:21
      To: unrev-II@egroups.com
      Subject: Re: [unrev-II] "Trees of Knowledge" Map vs. DKR Enables Knowledge
    Mapping?

      Wow! This thread is getting longish, and fun. TriVium appears to
    understand
      the issues. There is more on the Trees of Knowledge at
      http://www.connected.org/learn/levy.html

      What's important, at least to me, is that they center a presentation on a
      single focal point. By way of analogy (which, itself is an absolutely
      necessary feature in any knowledge engine), Doug Lenat's Eurisko program
      used a concept he called *focus of attention* (he wasn't alone -- other AI
      jockeys used that term) as a means of computing the *priority* placed on
      some task on an agenda.

      Now, we're getting to the meat, IMHO, of the matter. We only learn when we
      are interested and we tend to agendize things that are interesting to us,
      leaving the 'c' jobs for later -- perhaps except for those few who are
      compulsive about getting 'c' jobs out of the way. Eurisko's architecture
      applied an agenda and task structure that kept Eurisko working on those
      tasks with highest priority. Each task cycle saw a slight decay in
    priority
      of all tasks (forgetting), and each task, while being executed, had the
      ability to modify the priority of any task still on the agenda (feedback).
      Thus, it became possible to use *focus of attention* as a means to keep
    some
      train of thought running for a long time (greatly to the probabilistic
      detriment of those not running). That, of course, explains <gg> why the
      excuse "I forgot" is valid.

      I am saying here that an agenda-based architecture, one with feedback and
      decay mechanisms, comes closest of anything I have seen yet to a
      biologically inspired architecture. My program The Scholar's Companion
      implements just such an architecture <note> not bragging here, just
    stating
      that I have some experience with this approach </note>. All of which is
    to
      suggest that it would be really nice to see an English version of the
    books
      mentioned at TriVium (else I'll have to dust off my 40-year old high
    school
      French ;-(

      Merge a couple of threads together here and we're liable to have an image
    of
      the DKR.

      Cheers,
      Jack

      From: John J. Deneen <JJDeneen@ricochet.net>

    > So the following is some interesting info from TriVium.com, relative to
      our design
    > requirments for the DKR to enable knowledge mapping:
    >
    > On 6/15/00 at SRI, after Gil Regev demonstrated his collaborative
    concept
      mapping
    > applet (http://icapc4.epfl.ch/knowarepub,
    http://icapc4.epfl.ch/g99space),
      he
    > suggested checking out the "The Trees of Knowledge" technology (i.e.,
      Umap, Seek-K,
    > and Gingo) at TriVium.com based on my comments about Cartia.com
    Relational
      Topic
    > Mapping (RTM) technology called "ThemeScape."
    > (http://www.cartia.com/products/index.html)
    >
    > Proprietary Technology
    > http://www.trivium.fr/new/techno.htm
    >
    > ...."For information, type "Trees of Knowledge" or "Gingo" (the first
      real-time
    > visualization software for organizational information and competencies)
    in
      the
    > search engine of your choice. You will then have access to interviews,
      case studies,
    > and the opinions of various members of the Internet community
      (journalists, leaders,
    > citizens, critics, etc.) on the subject. This information is constantly
      updated,
    > given the increasing power of this theory, and its practical
    applications
      to daily
    > life. Reconnect often to remain up-to-date on the latest developments.
    For
      a global
    > vision of different opinions, why not make a Umap map of all the
      information?"...
    >
    > The map
    > The Umap map is a mosaic of colored pieces on a uniform background. Each
      of these
    > pieces represents a thesaurus word; each word of the thesaurus finds its
      place in
    > the map.
    >
    > What is the map?
    > Placed between the windows of the thesaurus and the document group (or
      body), the
    > Umap map indicates the relative proximity of thesarus words, beginning
      with their
    > relative significance in each text.
    >
    > Significance of the map
    > By grouping the words in proximity zones (small islands, near-islands,
      concentric
    > layers, etc.), the map offers an intuitive approach to someone familiar
      with the
    > logical topic connections that exist between certain texts.
    >
    > What use is it
    > By spotting common topics within certain texts, one can quickly select
    the
      texts of
    > interest, or remove those that are momentarily unneeded. ....
    >
    > Why Cartography ?
    > http://www.trivium.fr/new/carto.htm
    >
    > Concept & Ideas
    > What is exactly Knowledge Management and why do companies need KM
      solutions today ?
    > http://www.trivium.fr/new/index_2.htm
    > http://www.trivium.fr/new/gingo/main.htm
    >
    > Rod Welch wrote:
    >
    > > Bill,
    > >
    > > Sorry have not been able to respond sooner.
    > >
    > > The aim of a knowledge management effort, is to map a share of
    important
    > > connections showing cause and effect that the mind forms when it
      encounters
    > > information during a meeting, looking at a picture, reading a book,
      walking
    > > across the street, i.e., input from sight and sound that constitutes
      human
    > > experience.
    > >
    > > This uses writing in a different way, to set out our personal
      understanding of
    > > the why and wherefore of events. In particular we want to identify
    our
      mistakes
    > > by checking alignment, and make corrections in small communication
      miscues
    > > before they become big problems. The DKR rigged in a certain way can
      hardwire
    > > the relationships so we can get them back when needed to improve upon
    > > spontaneous impressions. The DKR provides context that leverages the
      value of
    > > information. It enhances research by providing a routine template of
      structure
    > > that extends traditional punctuation and rules of grammar for
    imparting
      meaning
    > > to information.
    > >
    > > It is not all a bed of roses. When we begin making connections, the
      result
    > > looks confusing to some. Jack and Doug are working on tools to
    improve
      the
    > > view.
    > >
    > > There is a lot more that can be accomplished with an engine of
    knowledge
      to
    > > enhance traditional work practices, e.g., reporting, engineering, law,
      medical
    > > practice, accounting, scientific research, etc. In short, the DKR
      provides an
    > > environment and tools (OHS) for getting a share of our knowledge into
    a
      form
    > > that allows it to be tested for accuracy, and applied consistently,
      promptly
    > > when and if needed. The big distinction between this idea and the
      popular
    > > notion of storing "knowledge" from books, magazines and so on in a
      repository,
    > > is that each of us have a lot of knowledge from our daily experience
      that we
    > > primarily rely upon to do our work and live our lives. This latter
    body
      of
    > > stuff is what we want to improve, and in doing so, the formal stuff in
      books
    > > will get better also.
    > >
    > > Hope this helps.
    > >
    > > Rod
    > >
    > > Bill Bearden wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Rod,
    > > >
    > > > You bring up an interesting and valid point with which I am
    currently
    > > > struggling. I have been reading (and trying to understand) some of
    > > > Malhotra's extensions of Churchman, esp.
    > > > http://www.brint.com/members/online/200603/kmhitech/kmhitech.html.
      There,
    > > > Malhotra quotes Churchman:
    > > >
    > > > "To conceive of knowledge as a collection of information seems to
    rob
      the
    > > > concept of all of its life... Knowledge resides in the user and not
      in the
    > > > collection. It is how the user reacts to a collection of information
      that
    > > > matters."
    > > >
    > > > This sounds very much like what you say.
    > > >
    > > > But if knowledge can not exist outside of the mind, how can a DKR be
    > > > possible? By this definition, neither book nor computer can contain
    > > > knowledge. I believe in the concept of the DKR. Therefore, I can not
      accept
    > > > a definition which fundamentally prevents its existence.
    > > >
    > > > So, with your definition, my previous comment about knowledge being
    > > > everywhere is not valid. But I would guess that your definition
      invalidates
    > > > lots of things that have been discussed.
    > > >
    > > > Bill
    > > >
    > > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > > From: Rod Welch [mailto:rowelch@attglobal.net]
    > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 6:57 AM
    > > > > To: unrev-II@egroups.com
    > > > > Subject: [unrev-II] 2020 Hindsight: A Fictional DKR Narrative
    (long
    > > > > (sorry))
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Bill,
    > > > >
    > > > > Just, on your comment that "knowledge is generated all the time.
    > > > > It is all
    > > > > around us in books, etc..."
    > > > >
    > > > > My sense is a little different.
    > > > >
    > > > > "Knowledge" resides in the minds of people, and so is constantly
    > > > > being formed
    > > > > out of the information that is all around us in books, TV,
    > > > > meetings, and so on,
    > > > > as an interplay between our experience, and the mental ability to
      form
    > > > > consistent pattersn connections or patterns of cause and effect.
    > > > >
    > > > > Rod
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Bill Bearden wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Rod,
    > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Bill,
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Very thoughtful illustration you set out in your letter
    > > > > today... <SNIP />
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Thanks.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > <SNIP />
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > ... your open source query
    > > > > > > might be aided
    > > > > > > by explaining how that approach saves time, improves
      productivity, and
    > > > > > > earnings. Those criteria have proven to be good generic
      starting
    > > > > > > points for
    > > > > > > evaluating tools and work methods. ...
    > > > > > <MORE-SNIP />
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I agree that the traditional "value" metrics are useful.
    > > > > However, I question
    > > > > > how well they apply to something truly new. I doubt that
    > > > > electric lights or
    > > > > > telephones were cost effective replacements for existing
    > > > > technology right
    > > > > > when they were introduced. If DKRs ever prove truly useful, it
    > > > > may only be
    > > > > > after there are lots and lots of them hooked together and people
      are
    > > > > > immersed in them as a normal part of their lives. That is a
    > > > > long ways off.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > And anyway, my text was an exercise in speculation as much as
    > > > > anything. It
    > > > > > was just me trying to describe part of a system I see in my
    > > > > head (if I close
    > > > > > my eyes real tight after I've had a couple of beers :-).
    > > > > >
    > > > > > <SNIP-SNIP-SNIP />
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > In the meantime, it turns out that using a keyboard, computer
    > > > > screen, and
    > > > > > > special tools seems to augment human intelligence beyond what
      can
    > > > > > > be expected
    > > > > > > from reliance on voice recognition and pictures, for reasons
    > > > > in the record
    > > > > > > reviewing Andy Grove's book on 980307...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
      http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/98/03/07/161449.HTM#L351552
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Generating knowledge is hard work. ...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Yes, but knowledge is generated all the time. It is all around
    > > > > us. Capturing
    > > > > > it and encoding it so computers can store it and people can
    > > > > learn it is the
    > > > > > problem as I see it. IMO, this process will remain very
    > > > > difficult until we
    > > > > > have more immersive user interfaces. Until then, it *might*
    > > > > make sense to
    > > > > > try and "scrape" knowledge from existing stores (e.g. books,
      databases,
    > > > > > source code, etc). Truly integrated information systems
    > > > > probably yields more
    > > > > > short term bang for the buck. Again, just my speculation.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > ... But people don't mind hard work, if it
    > > > > > > yields rewards and is fun. Games are an example. People
    "work"
    > > > > > > awfully hard at
    > > > > > > golf, tennis, running, exercise, and computer games, because
      they
    > > > > > > get immediate
    > > > > > > satisfaction of varying kinds from the experience.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I love the point you make about "work" and games. IMO,
      Csikszentmihalyi
    > > > > > explains fairly well why that is in his book, Flow. I was
    excited
      to see
    > > > > > Flow mentioned on the L3D philosophy page
    > > > > > (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d/philosophy.html). L3D
    > > > > (LifeLong Learning &
    > > > > > Design) is the "mother" project of Dynasites, to which John
    > > > > Deneen submitted
    > > > > > a link yesterday.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > <FINAL-SNIP />

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Community email addresses: Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 07:11:13 PDT