(bridge) Send note to Paul Prueitt . (back to SBF1)

We ask that comments and discussion on this series be made in the Yahoo groups from, eventChemistry.

APC1 – On enumeration by the human of the cell values over an event class

APC2– Minimal Voting Procedure

APC3 – Using the MVP to rout information

APC4 – Using eventChemistry to improve the framework specification

(forward to SBF3)

Action Perception Cycles 1

On enumeration by the human of the cell values over an event class

In SBF3 we will consider the

Domain space = { E _l | l = 1, . . . , 100 }

described by 100 Frame instantiations, F_l , to produce 1900 individual data pieces

{ F_l | l = 1, . . . , 100 } à { < a(0), a(1), a(2), . . . , a(18) > _l | l = 1, . . . , 100 }.

Frame instantiations, F_l , are created by completely filling out the SB-Framework’s 18 cells and 1 name tag for each of the 100 events.

One can change the partition on the 1900 individual data pieces by categorizing the values in each cell. Remember that the cells are also called “slots” in script theory. Over time a slot is defined to be the “container” for the reoccurring cell values.

The notion of an autopoietic envelop with “structural coupling” is relevant to this notion of a script (or framework) slot. The notion of autopoiesis was developed in 1989 in Maturana and Varela’s book “Tree of Knowledge” and fits well within the various cognitive science and ecological physics that we use to ground the tri-level architecture for machine intelligence, and the physics in stratified complexity.

Over time the question becomes about what are the values that have been entered into the slot. This question leads to a categorical abstraction about the nature of the cell in the context of the class of event in the domain space.

{ F_l | l = 1, . . . , 100 } à { { a(1) _l }, { a(2) _l }, { a(3) _l }, . . . , { a(18) _l } }

is a set of sets. Each of the “contained” sets is a set of values occurring in a single slot.

This set of sets is more compactly expressed as:

{ { a(i) _l } _i | i = 1, . . . , 18 }.

The Sowa-Ballard Framework

{ independent, relative, mediating }

{ physical, abstract }

{ occurrent, continuant, universal }

is considered to be more general than the Zachman Framework. Either one of these frameworks can be learned, by almost anyone, in a few hours. One gets used to thinking about “relative physical universal” as “interaction, which is the (2,1,3) cell of the Ballard Framework, for example. In using the Zachman Framework one actually has guidance from the Zachman Institute and from several published books. A clerk whose job it is to develop enumerations of frameworks simply gets good at converting tacit knowledge into what is then processed to become the designated structural coupling between events.

The process of enumerating the cell values for 100 events might take a day or two if the human is familiar with the events. These events can literally be anything, individual text reports or events that have caused a crisis management group to assemble.

The events might even be some event in computational space, such as database accesses, and the cells might be automatically populated by first order logics (consisting of if then expressions) and something like a Petri net. But we are focusing on the case where the Generalized Framework is presented to a human as part of a knowledge elicitation process.

Figure 1: The process flow model of human memory formation, storage and use.

In the case that we have a human in the loop, we have an extension of the model of human memory, awareness and anticipation that Prueitt has derived from basic research in behavioral cognitive science. Once this model is achieved, then one is free to use the tri-level architecture specified in the book “Foundation of Knowledge Management”, by Prueitt, in press) and in particular to use the minimal voting procedure invented by Prueitt in 1996.

(bridge) Comments can be sent to ontologyStream e-forum . (back to SBF3)