Re: [-empyre-] archiving + preservation]

[Kenneth Fields <ken@ccom.edu.cn>]

> I'm glad you brought this up! I've thought about this a lot, and it 
> came up many times while I was developing liken. The issue was that we 
> wanted to have a more [visual/spatial] representation of the node 
> structure. But this complicates matters 100-fold. Think of the example 
> Jaka brought up about the links from a "rock" node. "Rock" may be very 
> close to "Music" in conceptual space, and it may also be very close to 
> "Geology," but "Music" and "Geology" are very far apart in conceptual 
> space. This destroys the idea of "clusters," unless nodes are 
> constantly rearranging themselves into clusters -- at which point the 
> cluster is basically a list, which is our current default.

I have been looking at two different kinds of structures lately, 
associations and prototypes. the first is what you describe in liken; 
when I import your xml file into protege, I would categorize elements 
of your clusters into prototypes (schema) - class-subclass  - inherited 
properties. So picture those nice organic human structures skydiving 
off into crystalized rational formations. The web is an example of the 
first structure, the semantic web is example of the second structure. 
The semantic web will look exactly as it looks today, but under the 
hood, it will be categorized into ontologies.

Rock-Music, Rock-Chair are associational relationships. In ontological 
terms, Rock inherits properties from Object/NaturalObject/Rock. 
Specific kinds of Rocks (MoonRocks) inherit from Rock, but add their 
own distinctive properties not found in all Rocks (specificallyLocated 
Moon). RockMusic on the other hand is not an object, it is a kind of 
Radiating/RadiatingSound/AudibleSound/Music. In ontology, relationships 
are expressed in such ways as 'isA, hasA, PartOf... Music isA Art, 
Music isA FieldOfStudy, Music isA Punishment(face the music), isA 
Business, Hobby, etc.............

In Liken you're giving unique id's to both nodes and paths. 
EveryLikenThing isA Node or a Path. Can you start to differentiate a 
little bit more - what type of node (peopleNode, conceptNode), path 
(associationPath, prototypePath, poeticalPath). See, we start getting 
into ontology.

> We can mentally reconcile this problem very easily, because that's the 
> way our mind works.  Of course "Rock" can have a million connotations! 
> But when it comes down to displaying these relationships on a grid of 
> pixels in 2D or 3D space, all existing models of representation fall 
> short. The "nodemap" representation of liken is the dumb, brute-force 
> method of describing the pathways as fixed in 2D space. This would be 
> similar to (if it were possible) taking a picture of the brain from 
> the top, with every neuron and connection visible. It's interesting to 
> look at, but ultimately useless in its ability to really tell us 
> anything.
>
> That's why when we talk about "conceptual cartography," we're talking 
> about fundamentally different ways of

I know what you mean of course (mapping concepts), but amusingly, it 
sounds like 'Theoretical Cartography' - (differs from 'Actual 
Cartography.' ). So let's associate; what's the difference between 
Theoretical Biology and Biological Theory (theory of biology). Would 
Conceptual Cartography deal with hyperMaps, where you don't have to 
traverse space to get somewhere. Maybe hyperMaps, criticalMaps might 
lead to some interesting hybrid topological structure - between the 
spatial, associational and prototypical. Topology may offer the 
occasion for meta-design principles. Maybe we need some kind of 
Godelized methodology, where you can warp in and out of 
spatial/associational/nodal 'space.' Space isn't just spatial :). Time 
isn't just temporal (Ouch).

So visual to aural mapping may not be taking into consideration the 
different topological demands of 'spaces with unique rules' (unique 
processes for moving from one point to another). Instead of directly 
'mapping' (height to frequency, a to a, b to b), maybe interpretation / 
translation is required. Interpretation (hermeneutics) is a non-linear 
process in the extreme (unless you are operating with interpretation 
methods already well established). AI is moving to AH (artificial 
hermeneutics) - intelligence and interpretation are both quaiifiedBy 
Artificial.

So we're back at Herbert Simon's Artificial Sciences.

Ken


> embodying the neighborhoods and networks of paths and concepts. 
> Hopefully this is interesting enough to inspire others to develop new 
> imaginations of liken; certainly it is to us, and we have many 
> alternate reincarnations in mind...
>
> - ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
>
> Powered by MessageSoft SMG SPAM, virus-free and secure email 
> http://www.messagesoft.com




Powered by MessageSoft SMG 
SPAM, virus-free and secure email 
http://www.messagesoft.com