[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No quarrel from me on that one. Reading their
list postings without a grounding in chaos
and complexity theory is pretty much useless.
Ever taken a look at the quantum models for
human thought? See the SEED site that
Edwina Taborsky et al manage.
Still, there is baby in the bathwater. These
guys have better credentials for what they are
doing than TimBL did for hypertext. And maybe
they will get a few more things right up front
rather than after ten years of cherry picking
the credentialed brains of others. On the
other hand, I think a lot of what they write
is based on years of cherry picking, so maybe
they are in need of simplifying assumptions.
How well one can apply predicate logic tends
to be constrained by how well one can establish
a value as a "fact" instead of simply an assertion.
There is something to be said for the position
that all we get back from topic maps or the
semantic web is opinions.
I tend to favor the computational semiotics
approach, but possibly because I find models
such as Ricardo Gudwin's model for evaluating
intelligence from a computational semiotics
perspective to be implementable, understandable,
and amenable to XML.
It takes a lot of picking to get a simple tune
that both sells and is original.
len
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> "I'm attempting to approach knowledge science by first "red-shifting" the operating system. That shift in systemic approach is first realized by conjectively shifting all data when received immediately into a convolution of the data against a sense-of-conjecture, and in so doing, literally create a scale of meaning along the one dimension of sense as a memory retrieval mechanism via ordinal position along this scale of sense.
Sounds like a bunch of BS dressed up in $10 words ("conjectively"!?!?).
This is the kind of stuff that has given KR a bad name.
Mind you, as TimBL points out, hypertext was getting a bad name in the
early nineties. -Tim
|
