[319]                           home                           [321]

 

Monday, December 19, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

 

 

Challenge Problem  à

 

 

Lattice of ontologies

Footnotes made by Prueitt on Ballard’s communication

 

 

1) You are not implying here that context is NOT also an artifact of situated-ness, something that occurs in even non-living systems such as elementary particle interactions. 

 

Elaboration (Paul):  Of course not.  In fact, the information theory that Ballard works with is grounded in a type of real physics, as discussed by Werbos, Prueitt and Ballard in previous communications.

 

2)Paul: In this sense, the pattern of relationships (defined in some fashion) is the context for the elements of a pattern.

 

 

 

3)I feel that I know that you are talking about using a heuristic, that asks the question; it this part of the pattern of relationships “part” of the same concept as this other part of the pattern of relationships.

 

 

4)Precisely.  The requirement is to separate the parts of a pattern so that there becomes a one to one correspondence between patterns and “concepts” or “taxa” (if one is working in bioinformatics).  In bioinformatics, the unit fir comparison and organization is called a “taxon”. 

 

 

5) UDEF naming conventions recognize this contextualization issue. 

 

 

6) We need a definition for mediating structure. 

 

Elaboration (paul):  I conjecture, based on my past history with Sowa and Ballard, that the mediating structure is the set of semantic primitives; 12 in Sowa’s case and 18 in Ballard’s case.  If this conjecture is valid, then the tri-level architecture I have proposed helps to bring that mediating structure to the measurement of relationships existing due to some instrumentation; (linguistic parsing and latent semantic indexing in the case of free text semantic extraction) or (use of microarray hardware with some type of hierarchical similarity analysis in the case of gene expression analysis).