[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Len
With the web we discovered that the linking process transform each element
by integrating them into a whole: the World Wide Web. The integration
process is through links. Through links we can navigate through thoughts
associations.
With XML we can create our own domain language. If that language do not
include linking capabilities, the document stands alone without any
opportunity to relate to or be linked to another document. If the domain
language includes linking capabilities, it is then possible to create a
whole greater than the parts. If each domain language has its own way to
express links, then, a navigator will have to be aware of all the different
idiosyncratic ways to link. If all these domain languages share the same
linking syntax then the linking process can be modularized and re-used. If
the same linking syntax is used, then we assist to a clustering mechanism
and itself the linking syntax creates a new network effect governed by the
"power distribution" pattern (in opposition to a normal distribution - in
the mathematical sense a power distribution is based on attractors and is
not normally distributed).
I think that having a consensus on certain layers would tremendously
leverage human knowledge. For instance having the same syntax helped reduce
the knowledge load by re-using the same rules (i.e. by using XML). So far so
good. But staying at the syntax level is only a minor first step. As we
already know, several languages share the same alphabet but it does help the
people to understand each other since the languages are different. If we add
a standard linking layer on top of that we put in place the basic tool used
by intelligent systems: linking. A neuron is nothing useful per se but
linked to others it becomes the source of thoughts and thoughts the source
of actions.
I think that the recent debate about xlink and the XHTML workgroup
conclusions lost sight about a more global perspective and a potential
opportunity for mankind if a common linking specification reach social
acceptance. Instead of talking of semantic web, we should focus on the basic
fabrics of the web and the basic principle underlying intelligent complex
systems: linking.
You know, at first I thought that XML was too verbose and that there are
more efficient way to structure information. Then, I accepted more work
(more thing to do and write) in order to gain from the new standard. I think
that the argument about the xlink namespace notation is not really a show
stopper since I myself learned XML and a more verbose way to structure
information in order to gain something else. People would probably invest in
xlink if they gain something more from it.
The linking debate is more important that we may envision on first sight.
And I think that, as always, Byzantine fights leads to some myopic view of
the world.
"A different point of view is worth a thousand point of IQ". I do not know
who said that at first but I know that reality is not a single facetted
world and that the more we can perceive it through different perspective,
the more it reveals itself. There is a whole universe in a grain of sand.
And when this grain of sand is linked to the other through gravity of other
attraction forces it creates beaches or sand sculpture or....
Semi-conductors and who knows what else it could be.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: 29 août, 2002 10:57
To: 'Didier PH Martin'
Cc: 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Linking global context
Looks like a good read. The blurbs hype it as revolutionary, and it is not.
Any erudite Hindu can explain all of this to one. But since the
dominant metaphor these days is the web, explaining things in
terms of webs and networks makes sense as a pop communique.
So do tantra and karma. A lot of us have been using ecosystem
metaphors for some time, and that is a somewhat better metaphor in that
it takes up communities in a less flat metaphor: hubs (attractors)
might not be organized as a set of connections, but in terms of
the sign systems (say message types) they share, so this
becomes the self-organizing principle and one has to think
about how and in what ways sign systems and power laws
are connected (it isn't hard).
Some questions: how does any member unattached to a
network/community choose its community, and by what
means does it signal such intentions?
What is the nature of habit, how are habits acquired,
and are we capable of transcending habit? Is the trancendence
of habit the key to transcending the network itself?
Desire is the maker. Desire is the destroyer. How do we
become the masters of desire? Networks are a very flat
way to look at a complex adaptive system. Given an origin
event, how long does it take and at what frequency of
interaction for intelligence to emerge? What events can
be posited that will amplify this emergence or curb it?
What events destroy intelligence (capable of manipulating
and influencing events) and how are they detected?
One can resort to pattern and link analysis, but they
are wholely unintuitive. At the operational scales,
intuitive knowledge is vital for selecting actions.
len
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]
Hi
In the context of linking, does anybody has read "Linked - the New Science
of Networks" by Alberto-Laszlo Barabasi?
I would be interested - in the perspective of linking - to listen to your
thoughts about these concepts.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
|
