Re: [unrev-II] Fwd: Re: [topicmapmail] loss-less transformation of topic maps

From: Peter Jones (ppj1100@connectfree.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 30 2001 - 13:21:50 PDT

  • Next message: Jack Park: "[unrev-II] Fwd: SOAP:Lite, Document clipping with annotation"

    I concur with Bernard's sentiments, if only because I have been straining my
    brain trying to think about plausible representations that are more
    efficient in terms of information uptake than text and visualisations, for
    use in OHS user interfaces.
    I am a great believer in the power of visualisations plus text to impart
    information with great rapidity.
    I also believe, in line with Howard and Jack that there is great power in
    the geometric.
    But I also think that good visualisations have not yet seen their day
    outside of some military simulators and popular games. (But think of all
    those Blackhawk pilots that have to learn to use different eyeballs for
    different things simultaneously...)

    In private conversations with Jack, I have begun to raise for myself the
    issue of what augmentation really means.
    For example:
    Is it computers + mind-boosting drugs?
    Or is it really powerful filtering down, abstracting if you will, so that
    our brains can seem to cover more ground in less time? What form would these
    abstracts take?
    Or is it just about removing any remaining inefficiencies in the interface
    between people and computers? Being able to talk to others and sculpt inside
    virtual space with all worldly knowledge a short request, or even ultimately
    a thought, away.
    Or all of the above?

    (I'd love to hear the views of anyone that's played with option (1) ;-)

    cheers,
    Peter

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jack Park <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
    To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 2:28 PM
    Subject: [unrev-II] Fwd: Re: [topicmapmail] loss-less transformation of
    topic maps

    > This discussion, going on at the topicmapmail group (available by surfing
    > http://www.infoloom.com), plays deeply to the kinds of issues any OHS
    might
    > try to cover. Steve Newcomb is one of the inventors of what we call Topic
    > Maps. He came to this kind of thinking because he got involved with
    > computer representation of music, which lead to the SGML standard we now
    > call HyTime, and needed a way to navigate in HyTime space. Topic Maps
    > naturally fell out.
    >
    > Bernard Vatant is one of those really deep thinkers who often pops with
    > something profound. I, personally, am quite enthused with the following
    > articulation of his views that I thought the Unrev group might see fit to
    > extend the discussion.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Jack
    >
    >
    > >----- Original Message -----
    > >From: Bernard Vatant <b.vatant@wanadoo.fr>
    > >
    > > > [Steve N.]
    > > >
    > > > ... my perception is that we are both dyed-in-the-wool text-editing
    > >bigots,
    > > > and that we are both totally unreconstructable. I rarely admit this
    in
    > > > public, though. It is not at all fashionable to care about exactly
    how
    > > > things are expressed for interchange ...
    > > >
    > > > Steve
    > > >
    > > > As another "dyed-in-the-wool text-editing bigot", I'd like to add some
    > >other
    > > > "non-fashionable" comments. There again, an interesting insight is
    given
    > >by
    > > > looking back to mathematics history, which presents the advantage of
    > being
    > > > scores of centuries old, and interchange syntax history looks like a
    > baby
    > > > compared to it.
    > > > Mathematics history shows a long struggle between text-editing and
    other
    > > > representations - schemas, figures, algorithms etc. One interesting
    > thing
    > >is
    > > > that the validation of whatever mathematical result is still nowadays
    > made
    > > > through peer review of "natural language" demonstrations. Even if
    these
    > > > demonstrations are stuffed with formal calculus, graphical
    > representations
    > > > etc. they are basically edited text, of which meta-structure is all
    > >natural
    > > > language. It's very amazing indeed to notice that the most pervasive
    > >tools
    > > > for scientific and technical developments are grounded in such peer
    > > > agreement over linear text-like natural-language grounded
    presentations.
    > > > For example, strong debate araised in the 80's when the first computer
    > > > assisted demonstration appeared, namely for a long pending conjecture
    > >known
    > > > as "four colors conjecture" (assuming that four colors were enough to
    > >color
    > > > any 2-D territory map so that you change color every time you cross a
    > > > fronteer - very tricky question, of which not the least difficult part
    > was
    > > > to define properly what is a map and what is a territory and what is a
    > > > fronteer). The human-readable part of that demonstration demonstrates
    > that
    > > > the infinite set of possible maps can be reduced to a finite - but
    very
    > > > large - set of particular maps, and a computer program is shown to be
    > able
    > > > to construct a proper coloring for each of them. This program was
    > > > successfully ran, so the authors assumed the demonstration was
    > validated.
    > > > The controverse raged about that validation, since even if the
    computer
    > > > work - about a week of Cray 1 at the time - could be reproduced and
    *in
    > > > theory* be translated in text, the procedure was so long that the
    > edition
    > >of
    > > > this text would have taken billions of pages at least, that no human
    > > > mathematician could ever be able to read - let alone understanding -
    in
    > a
    > > > reasonable life span ... so the usual peer review rules were broken.
    > > >
    > > > What do we learn from that? Basically, we are still in the text age,
    > even
    > >if
    > > > it is pretended otherwise here and there. Despite the fact we all
    > pretend
    > > > the true nature of knowledge is pluridimensional, references of the
    > >highest
    > > > aknowledged level in all domains are still texts. Laws, regulations
    and
    > > > international treaties are texts, mathematical demonstrations are
    texts,
    > > > syntaxes and languages specifications are texts, where "exactly how
    > things
    > > > are expressed" is a fundamental feature ... and computer programs are
    > >texts
    > > > too - not to speak about books about all that, of course.
    > > >
    > > > So, Steve, when you say "we" [are both dyed-in-the-wool text-editing
    > >bigots]
    > > > it's not only you and Murray - and Bernard and Paul and <...> (enter
    > your
    > > > name here). "We" are there all knowledge and IT workers even if they
    > don't
    > > > aknowledge it. Shifting from that to a really pluridimensional
    paradigm,
    > a
    > > > world where non-linear graph-like representations will be primitive
    > > > references would be a real unprecedented historical shift. Although I
    am
    > a
    > > > strong graph and hypertext true-believer; my hunch is that we are very
    > >very
    > > > far away from ready for this paradigm shift. As the mathematics
    history
    > > > shows, we are more than dyed-in-the-wool, we are really - culturally
    > > > speaking - built out of linear text ... Centuries and centuries of
    > "Book
    > > > Civilization" and Biblic culture are certainly not for nothing in
    that,
    > >and
    > > > Ten Commandements are always in some corner of our minds ...
    > > >
    > > > Therefore sticking to texts is maybe a prudent strategy, since they've
    > > > proven so versatile and efficient, and no one really knows if shifting
    > to
    > > > pluridimensional as the basis of all representation is possible or
    even
    > > > desirable. And the debate about what should be the reference normative
    > > > representation of a TM, a text-like document (in XTM or any other
    > >serialized
    > > > syntax), or a pluridimensional object (a semantic graph
    representation)
    > is
    > > > not a minor one. Any sort of demonstration that these representations
    > >could
    > > > be considered equivalent will reinforce the "text-above-all" paradigm,
    > and
    > >a
    > > > demonstration that they are not - that there is something in the graph
    > > > representation which is not reductible to linear text, or/and the
    other
    > >way
    > > > round - would be interesting indeed!
    > > >
    > > > But my hunch is that whatever of those demonstrations should be
    somehow
    > > > text-written to be peer reviewed and validated :)
    > > >
    > > > Regards
    > > >
    > > > Bernard
    > > >
    > > > _______________________________________________
    > > > topicmapmail mailing list
    > > > topicmapmail@infoloom.com
    > > > http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
    >
    >
    >
    ============================================================================
    > This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
    > contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
    > the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
    > If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
    > of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
    > immediately.
    >
    ============================================================================
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    >
    >
    >

    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

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 13:32:36 PDT