Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

Glen - Thanks for the complementary concept of "labelled transition systems" (generalization of "state diagram"?) to juxtapose with Graph and Network. The trouble with reduction to a unified ontology is also critical, because I think the majority of the problem we're struggling with (writ

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

Yes, absolutely! The arguments about the ambiguity of terms like complex, model, layer, and the capitalization of words in programming languages fall squarely in the ontologies domain. And that means they fall under graph and network theory, though I think "labelled transition systems" might be

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is the distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy. I specifically mean 1. Mathematical Model 2.

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

Not quite letting this drowning horse gurgle in peace, I realized that I brought up the Ontology/Joslyn paper because of the Ontology issue and alignment/resolution of Lexicons (or more apropos Ontologies). The Gene Ontology was chosen for this project because it was one of the more mature

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

OK, we can hold off on beating this horse until a more specific and relevant example arrives on the scene, then we can lead him to water and hold him under whether he drinks or not.! On 6/9/17 1:56 PM, gepr ⛧ wrote: I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain cycles. So

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain cycles. So DAGs are inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level". On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith wrote: >Glen - > >At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in >