[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Right. Introduction of parameters is a better approach,
although it indicates that as I said, the system is not
closed or completely self-organizing. It requires an
environment. That is a basic principle of behavioral
cybernetics. Further, the environment can be modified
by the evolving entities it contains, and that modifies
the entities as well. This is a fundamental of ecosystems
and the application to information system is information
ecosystems: adaptation of self to environment and environment
to self.
The values in the camera document changes as the instance
of the camera changes. The values of the schema of the
camera changes when **cameras** evolve. This relationship
of schema to document, type to instance, can only be evolutionary
when an observer of camera evolution changes the schema.
It is a sensing or semiotic system. The environment is
also a semiotic entity. This model of recursion of feedback-mediated
adaptation is found in living systems and can be applied
to artificial systems.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Rafter [mailto:jeffrafter@defined.net]
> How can we create an ontology that evolves? Here is a thought: express
> semantic relationships in an XSLT document! An XSLT stylesheet has an
> interesting property of being able to output a modified version of
> itself, i.e., the output of the stylesheet is another, modified,
> stylesheet. The output stylesheet may contain template rules that have
> been modified to reflect changing semantics, and additional template
> rules that contain new semantic relationships.
Roger,
I think you found the crux of that discussion in Mike's point. As I read
your message I thought it would be helpful to establish what we mean by
flux/change specifically (if not limitedly) for the sake of exploration. I
am admitedly a newbie in this area...
For example, given a sample "system" (working with cameras is fine) what are
the areas of change that we are worried about-- some possible cases:
1) Someone removes an existing ontology (e.g. they decide SLRs never
existed)
2) Someone adds a new ontology (e.g. a new camera type called an FBR is
invented)
3) Someone changes an existing ontology (e.g. f-stop comes to mean
Flash-Stop)
In the third case the notion of locality (both existing for time and space)
as Len mentioned becomes important. Are we examining a document that was
created with an early notion of f-stop or the more recent changed meaning?
As for how to represent the ontology properties in XSLT, what if it was done
using something like
<xsl:call-template name="equivalentClass" select="Cameras/Kinds">
<xsl:with-param name="ID" select="Camera" />
</xsl:call-template>
|
