Re: LDA Topic Model and Topic Maps

Antony,

I would second Steve's answer but reduce it to where he says:

> I can easily imagine the relationship between LDA and a given topic 
> (i.e., a given reifier of a single unique subject) to be one in which 
> LDA was used as a tool by the topic's author to arrive at the notion 
> that the author then chose to reify as a topic. 

Or in other words, *yes*.

How you would go about that would require further discussion and a fair 
amount of detail.

To expand a wee bit, you can use any number of data 
mining/classification techniques to assist in the construction of a 
topic map. It really depends on your goals/purposes and the required 
degree of precision of identification.

Can you point to a project site or research papers that have further 
details?

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick



On 8/3/2011 7:23 PM, Steve Newcomb wrote:
> Antony,
>
> If I understand your question, and it's possible I that don't, I would 
> answer it this way:
>
> First of all, it's necessary to understand that every topic in a topic 
> map presumably is a proxy for exactly one subject.  A topic 
> constitutes an allegation by its author that the author was thinking 
> about exactly one thing, and that that single thing is identifiable, 
> in the author's chosen (and explicit) universe(s) of discourse, in one 
> or more ways which are explicit in the reifying topic.
>
> A topic map is an instance of a rhetoric in which it is assumed that 
> everything that is mentioned as a topic (i.e., that is "reified" in 
> the philosophical sense of that term), is being regarded by the author 
> of the topic map as a distinct and unique thing.
>
> It is quite possible for the distinct and unique thing that is the 
> combination of the classes "cat" and "dog" to be reified as a topic, 
> even though there is no name (at least in English) for that 
> combination of classes.
>
> I can easily imagine the relationship between LDA and a given topic 
> (i.e., a given reifier of a single unique subject) to be one in which 
> LDA was used as a tool by the topic's author to arrive at the notion 
> that the author then chose to reify as a topic.  It is not necessary 
> that there be a pre-existing universe of discourse in which that 
> combination of classes already has a name, nor is it necessary that a 
> "name" (at least in the usual sense of the term "name") be used to 
> uniquely identify it.  It may be very useful, albeit perhaps quite 
> tricky, to identify a subject in terms other than a simple "name".  It 
> may require the creation (and disclosure) of a new universe of 
> discourse.   I can imagine using some expression that is meaningful 
> only in terms of LDA to do it, given some universe of discourse in 
> which LDA plays some key role.  Whatever a subject-identifying 
> expression used in a subject proxy is, it must be independently 
> useful, in some processing context, for the purpose of unequivocally 
> answering the question:
>
>     "Given topics (subject proxies) A and B, each of which identifies
>     its subject via an expression that is processable in that same
>     processing context, do the two proxies reify the same subject, or
>     not?"
>
> I hope that helps.  BTW, Ontopia doesn't support multiple arbitrary 
> universes of discourse for subject identification, as discussed above, 
> but the basic notion of topic mapping certainly does.  The 
> relationship between Ontopia's "Topic Maps Data Model" and topic 
> mapping is not unlike the relationship between an early version of 
> Ingres and the relational model as originally described by C.J. Date.  
> There's much more in the Topic Maps paradigm than has been realized in 
> any existing implementation, or in the "Topic Maps Data Model".  The 
> Topic Maps Data Model is extremely useful, and Ontopia really works.  
> But as Yuri Rubinsky famously said about SGML (of which XML is a 
> sub-species): "But wait, there's more!"
>
> Steve Newcomb
>
> P. S. I drafted ISO 13250-2000, which includes ISO 10744 by 
> reference.  I co-edited the latter, too.  If you don't grok the full 
> generality of 10744, you don't grok the full generality of 13250.  Not 
> that it matters, really, but I don't think my authority to explain 
> these standards is open to reasonable debate.
>
> On 08/03/2011 03:41 PM, Antonisamy Arokiasamy wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Is there a way to derive Topic Maps 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_Maps> from an LDA Topic model 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_Dirichlet_allocation>?
>>
>> I asked this question on the Topic Models mailing list and was soon 
>> pointed to issues with hierarchies, direction, etc. And was also 
>> introduced to this group - I am new to this group.
>>
>> Given that these two concepts dont have a one to one match, how can 
>> we generate a user assisted Topic Map or even bootstrap a Topic Map 
>> from LDA.
>>
>> We have a LDA model that classifies documents and I am trying to see 
>> how this will map to Topic Maps and Ontologies.
>>
>> Thanks
>> /antony
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> topicmapmail mailing list
>> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
>> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick-Q/[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau

_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail