Re: One quibble re: topicmap

Alex,

On 11/30/2011 11:36 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> Patrick Durusau<patrick-Q/[email protected]>  wrote:
>> My goal was to get a discussion going about those pieces in general, even if
>> we don't agree all the pieces or where they go.
> We're still waiting for people to wake up, I think. :)
>

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I think people are doing mappings between systems all the time, but 
informally.

The trick is to find the payoff point where documenting and formalizing 
that mapping has some advantage.

Consider the advantages of being opaque:

1) Job security - they always have to ask you for your data

2) Prestige - you are the only one who understands your data

3) Territory - you can convert other data into your format, extending 
your range for #1 and #2

I suspect people have at some level woken up and aren't interested in 
giving up 1 - 3.

Which is why I am interested in projective topic map techniques, ones 
that don't require their cooperation.

>> Or quite honestly, to use good ideas you have for explaining modeling to
>> users for my own. ;-)
> You mean this? ;
>     https://plus.google.com/u/0/111886865967199209050/posts/QLx3LLeseeD

Something along those lines, yes. ;-) Perhaps with a few more 
walk-through examples.

> I have to admit that since doing Topic Maps, the world has for me
> become a very different place, and my understanding of the underlying
> problems that most software developers struggle with usually come from
> places that aren't normally blamed. There really should be an
> uprising, but ... well. Coffee.
>

;-)

Understand what you mean. Thinking deeply about topic maps will change 
your view of many things!



>> I may have a logic contest some time soon to see how many people use various
>> forms of logic in the average day. Suspect the numbers are going to be really low.
> I take it you mean formal logic? Because if not, the numbers will be
> even lower than you suspect, given the wife, and the kids and the
> neighbours and my boss and "other people" and ... :)
>

Well, formal logic is what they are advocating for computer systems.

Not to confuse "formal logic" with "reasoning." Not the same things. 
Reasoning can be rough, fuzzy and yet fairly certain, all at the same time.

Reasoning is what we use with subject identity and to think about subjects.

What puzzles me is why we think that taking a subset of that, formal 
logic, that will work on computers, is ever going to be as good at some 
tasks as we are. Different abilities and so a different outcome.

Hope



> Regards,
>
> Alex


-- 
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