Re: [port-peer-review] reviews
Chris, I agree with the content of your last mail except for the following bit. (01)
> > the Semantic Web envisaged by Berners-Lee). In fact, each person would do
> > very little publishing since most would have already be written by others.
>
> How incredibly boring! It implies that the world is not really subject
> to interpretation. (02)
No, if you have new views/ideas/interpretations, you can add them. It's just
that there is not that many different views on a subject when you are precise
enough. You can add views/ideas that contradict already represented ones as
long as you explicitly connect to them via a link of type
corrective_specialization, corrective_generalization or correction.
(This is part of the cooperation protocols of WebKB-2). (03)
Jack, (04)
> I stopped dead in my read to focus on this...
> "...concept maps, although I do not like them."
>
> Given that PORT is about finding the right mix of technologies (my
> interpretation) with which to complete collaborative tasks, I must ask
> what's not to like about concept maps? (05)
Personnaly, I would not call them a "knowledge representation" language
since, correct me if I am wrong,
- you can invent whatever label you want for concepts/relations nodes
(you can but do not have to declare and organize the labels into
a set of labels the use of which is constrained by subsumbtion
relationships, exclusion relationships, relation signature, or more
elaborate constraints);
- there is no quantifier (exist, forall, numerical quantifiers,
set quantifiers and set interpration modes, quantifier scopes, ...)
and therefore not only "no denotation" but no meaning at all;
- I do not remember if there are contexts or not
- what about sets? (06)
In short, if the above is correct, you can write graphs quickly
with Topic Maps but you cannot represent anything, and the result seems
very hard to check and exploit for inferencing. (07)
Philippe (08)