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 back in 2006 or 7, and had been formed by a committee of
concerned/stakeholder parties. It was known to be full of compromises
and half-truths. I was very interested (in spite of it being outside of
my purview) in the question of how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to
*compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them. It is
ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking,
but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish... but
that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific
ontology to work with. "If we had some rope, we could make a log
raft.... if we had some logs!"
I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or
avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others
here. For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation AND
collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going
on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind
mapping".
On 6/9/17 2:29 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
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 DAGs are inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level".
On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <[email protected]>
wrote:
Glen -
At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in
hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.
I
agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.
My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological
than geometric structure. I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation
Nick?)
but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to
Christopher
Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in
a
real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.
Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the
naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think
of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges. I think in terms of
multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,
edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I
think, with vector properties on edges...
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
