Since nearing the first mile stone of MOM SSC, I thought, it might make some sense to connect to others occupied with content representation. I technoratied for "content representation" (including the quotation marks) and found several postings aparently totally irrelated to content representation. Also, today "content representation" seems to primarily mean "mark up", e.g. by terms provided by a thesaurus or the like. However, I found one attracting me, pointing to another one which in turn pointed me to 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers by Chris Chatham, posted on March 27, 2007.
Number one of his list of differences is nothing new -- "Brains are analogue; computers are digital", therefore skipped.
Number two reveals a new buzz word for describing MOM, "content-addressable memory", and it describes it as follows: "the brain uses content-addressable memory, such that information can be accessed in memory through " [...] spreading activation" from closely related concepts. [...]" When I read it first, I thought, oh, there might be someone with a similar concept in mind like MOM. On the second look, I realized, that claim likely originates just from psychology. The review continues the above quote by "For example, thinking of the word 'fox' may automatically spread activation [...]" which points a bit into neurology. I wonder who that claim "thinking of a word" or "thinking of a fox" or even "thinking of the word 'fox'" can be proven to spin off activation. I mean, that would imply someone proved "the word 'fox'" and a neuron equal, since the neuron is that instance sending activation to other neurons. -- However, I share that opinion, the one a neuron represents an item, but I am just not aware of a proof for that. If you have such a one at hand, I'd be really glad if you could hint me to the source. (Just since it'd support my own claims.)
Aside, I don't share the idea thinking of a word might immediately stimulate "memories related to other clever animals" [as my source, the above linked article, continues] related content. I think, at least it needs to think of the fox itself instead of just the word "fox". And, to finish the quoted sentence, it ends in "fox-hunting horseback riders, or attractive members of the opposite sex."
Back to MOM, taking "content-addressable memory" as a label for it, actually is chosen accordingly: Chris Chatham continues his second difference with a "The end result is that your brain has a kind of 'built-in Google,' in which just a few cues (key words) are enough to cause a full memory to be retrieved." Well, that's exactly what MOM is after: To pick up matching "memories" by just a few cues. -- The way Chris Chatham is describing the issue is pretty close to the original issue that led me to figuring out MOM: A guy who got his heater damaged who must find the spare part by utilizing a thesaurus. The thesaurus mostly consists of abstraction relationships between item names listed there. And rather often, there is no definition for the items provided -- thesaurus makers seem to presume you're a specialist on that field of topic or you wouldn't make use of a thesaurus at all. However, restricted to that tool, if that tool is restricted to abstraction relationships mainly, you cannot find the part you need to repair the heater. But what if you'd remove all the is a (i.e. abstraction) relationships and set up a "kind of thesaurus" consisting of has a relationships only? -- That way, you'd find the spare part as quickly as your in-mind "Google" might do. At least if you've got another tool at hand that jumps you over all the crap of temporarily unnecessary details, like the knowledge that -- let's switch the example to a pet cat -- the four feet, torso, tail, neck and head that belong to the cat also belong to any quadruped animal. Such as a pet dog, or also a pet hamster.
With differences #3–#9 I were familiar with respectively became clear to me over the time I developed the Model of Meaning, e.g. the claim provided by "Difference # 6: No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind". That's rather clear, but I am not going to explain it here, since this posting is just a note to me (and anyone who might be interested), that there is a posting around which by content is close to MOM.
Difference #10, on the first glance looked unfamiliar to me -- "Brains have bodies" --, but although I wasn't aware of those change blindness findings "that our visual memories are actually quite sparse" quickly brought me back to what I already know (well, strongly believe; I lack the laboratories to proove my theoretic findings by scissoring mice). It's rather clear that "the brain is 'offloading' its memory requirements to the environment in which it exists: why bother remembering the location of objects when a quick glance will suffice?"
Updates: none so far
Showing posts with label profound article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label profound article. Show all posts
Friday, June 22, 2007
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Cleaning up the confusion about thesauri and classifications
To clean up the confusion mentioned earlier, I wrote a short introductionary article on thesauri and classifications. It mainly relies on an excerpt taken from a book of a former information science teacher of mine. -- Here we go:
Methods of organizing content representation originate from the fields of library science and documentation.[2]
There are two dominant content representation methods in documentation: classification and thesaurus. "A classification is a structured representation of classes and of the notional relationships between the classes."[3] Any class is represented by a notation, whereby the notation is independent of any natural language (cf. DIN 37205, 2).[4] "Similarly, a thesaurus also is an organized compilation of terms, but in this case their natural language appellations are used (cf. DIN 1463/1, 2)."[5]
Systems of concept differentiate between two main kinds of relationship: associative and hierarchical relationship. There are two variants of the latter: the abstract and the partitive variant.[7]
Abstract relationship means that a "child" term has the same features as its parent plus at least one additional feature, the parent term does not have.[8] (The features are not stated anywhere; there is nothing but a parent term, a child term, and a relationship link between both of them, representing that very "the child term has the same features as the parent one, but at least one additional other feature, the parent term does not have". -- In fact, the relationship refers to the items not to the notations: The item referred to by the notation has the more/the less features than the item referred to by the parent/child term notation.)
Partitive relationship means that the items referred to by the child terms are part of the item referred to by the parent term.[9]
Associative relationship refers to a relationship existing between a pair of terms that cannot be related hierarchically to each other, although nevertheless there is a relationship between both of the terms. A pair of antonyms cannot be related hierarchically to each other, therefore here the matching kind of relationship is the associative one.[10]
"A classification is a system of concepts"[11] having notions as classes. The classes are labeled by notations[12], which are language independent.
[1] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 1
[2] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 2, sentence 1
[3] [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 3, sentence 2: "Eine Klassifikation ist eine strukturierte Darstellung von Klassen und der zwischen den Klassen bestehenden Begriffsbeziehungen [...]."
[4] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 3, sentence 2
[5] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 3
[6] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 4 (incl headline)
[7] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 60, par. 1
[8] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 61, par. 2, sentences 1–2
[9] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 61, par. 2, sentences 4–5
[10] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 62, par. 1 (incl. bullet list)
[11] [Stock 2000], p. 63, par. 1, sentence 1: "Ein Klassifikationssystem ist ein Begriffssystem [...]."
[12] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 63, par. 1, sentences 1–2
[13] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 76, no. 3.3, par. 2, sentence 2
[14] cf. [Stock 2000], pp. 81–84
[15] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 77, par. 1 (including the example in between)
[16] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 77, par. 1, sentence 2
[Stock 2000]:
Stock, Wolfgang G.
Informationswirtschaft : Management externen Wissens
number of edition unknown
Muenchen, Wien, Oldenbourg, 2000
ISBN 3-486-24897-9<<
Updates: 20070624: Tagged the posting. Updated the posting style (layout) to my current style, such as more precise word picks, better grammar.
Introduction
Base assumption is that data, information, knowledge require to be ordered. The data has to be ordered systematically. People who perform indexing on data bases -- so called "indexers" -- use order systems to make content retrievable. Thus, only if a user knows the tools used during database creation she/he can retrieve information from that very database.[1]Methods of organizing content representation originate from the fields of library science and documentation.[2]
There are two dominant content representation methods in documentation: classification and thesaurus. "A classification is a structured representation of classes and of the notional relationships between the classes."[3] Any class is represented by a notation, whereby the notation is independent of any natural language (cf. DIN 37205, 2).[4] "Similarly, a thesaurus also is an organized compilation of terms, but in this case their natural language appellations are used (cf. DIN 1463/1, 2)."[5]
Systems of Concepts
Business documentation creates an order. This order refers to notions (= concepts) an relations between these notions. "One may assume that this equals to organize business terminology [...] by a notional order."[6]Systems of concept differentiate between two main kinds of relationship: associative and hierarchical relationship. There are two variants of the latter: the abstract and the partitive variant.[7]
Abstract relationship means that a "child" term has the same features as its parent plus at least one additional feature, the parent term does not have.[8] (The features are not stated anywhere; there is nothing but a parent term, a child term, and a relationship link between both of them, representing that very "the child term has the same features as the parent one, but at least one additional other feature, the parent term does not have". -- In fact, the relationship refers to the items not to the notations: The item referred to by the notation has the more/the less features than the item referred to by the parent/child term notation.)
Partitive relationship means that the items referred to by the child terms are part of the item referred to by the parent term.[9]
Associative relationship refers to a relationship existing between a pair of terms that cannot be related hierarchically to each other, although nevertheless there is a relationship between both of the terms. A pair of antonyms cannot be related hierarchically to each other, therefore here the matching kind of relationship is the associative one.[10]
"A classification is a system of concepts"[11] having notions as classes. The classes are labeled by notations[12], which are language independent.
Main difference between Thesaurus and Classification
The main difference between thesaurus and classification is that a thesaurus selects natural language words instead of setting up cryptic notations.[13] Thus, otherwise than classifications, a thesaurus cannot be used language indepently. To avoid confusing originating from synonyms and homonyms a thesaurus applies terminological control, i.e. it keeps homonyms distinct and sets of synonyms referring to the same item constitute a class. The most common one of these synonyms gets picked up and will be treated as the descriptor of that very class, i.e. a handle for the class -- one could say "a natural language notation" or simply "a label". To ensure that any piece of information (which shall be referred to by at least one "word" of the thesaurus[14]) always gets referred by the same "word", the non-descriptor synonyms refer to the descriptor of the class they belong to. Thus, any piece of information gets referred to by descriptors only, and retrieval attempts using non-descriptor synonyms get redirected to the matching descriptors. So, the pieces of information get tagged by descriptor synonyms (for short just "descriptors") and retrievals also use descriptors, so a match between tagging "words" and retrieval "words" becomes much more probable than if allowing to choose from descriptors and non-descriptors as well.[15]Accuracy sacrified to administration convenience
Sometimes synonyms and terms referring to similar items as the other synonyms won't be/aren't kept distinct but simply added to a common class[16]. Reason for this often is to keep administration expense low.[1] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 1
[2] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 2, sentence 1
[3] [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 3, sentence 2: "Eine Klassifikation ist eine strukturierte Darstellung von Klassen und der zwischen den Klassen bestehenden Begriffsbeziehungen [...]."
[4] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 3, sentence 2
[5] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 3
[6] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 59, par. 4 (incl headline)
[7] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 60, par. 1
[8] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 61, par. 2, sentences 1–2
[9] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 61, par. 2, sentences 4–5
[10] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 62, par. 1 (incl. bullet list)
[11] [Stock 2000], p. 63, par. 1, sentence 1: "Ein Klassifikationssystem ist ein Begriffssystem [...]."
[12] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 63, par. 1, sentences 1–2
[13] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 76, no. 3.3, par. 2, sentence 2
[14] cf. [Stock 2000], pp. 81–84
[15] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 77, par. 1 (including the example in between)
[16] cf. [Stock 2000], p. 77, par. 1, sentence 2
[Stock 2000]:
Stock, Wolfgang G.
Informationswirtschaft : Management externen Wissens
number of edition unknown
Muenchen, Wien, Oldenbourg, 2000
ISBN 3-486-24897-9<<
Updates: 20070624: Tagged the posting. Updated the posting style (layout) to my current style, such as more precise word picks, better grammar.
Friday, February 10, 2006
[Merged from (the now removed) ia: organizing notions:] I've been working on this topic for a long time, so now I want to get it clear, reliably substantiated and prepared to get it discussed. I've taken several attempts to create a united blog for it, like knowledge, knowledge.meta and find using notions (partitially English--partitially German).
I wasn't resolutely to in fact publish it while working on it--but I am working on it yet such a long time, I am sure I cannot expect to finish it in the near future. And also, I have not anymore that lot of time to work on it as I had when I was a student. I made the mental step to be willing to let a potential employer get its hands on it (well, in fact, if the employer is a cute search engine provider), so it doesn't hurt anymore to publish it while it is not yet finished.
The place for that shall be here. Well, I'm going to rename the URL of this blog soon, but there the description of the model shall happen, and any discussion on it, too.<<
Updates: 20070624: Tagged the posting. Removed my workaround for backlinks blogger.com didn't support in earlier times. Now, backlings are there, therefore the bypass can be dropped.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
