Alternative to the TBL RDF
layer cake model of the Internet à
Community centric service methodology à [home]
This thread is being extended starting this date to preserve the
initial discussions on ontology based modeling of complex social processes.
Paul S Prueitt
It is encouraging that a community wiki and other collaborative resources might soon be developed so that a "collective" type of discussion might be better assisted. [1]
The type of collective intelligence we talk about in the web ontology community is expressed in various ways, one of these being in the development of topic maps or web ontology. In both of these “expressions” universals are created from particulars. [63] In most cases, these expressions are created by professionals, and not created as part of every day experience. There is great value in professionally created ontology and topic maps. However, a specific bias is created as noted in the foundational statements of the “Second School”. We do not, now, wish to be confrontational regarding the nature and consequences of this bias. What we do is to make the promise that topic maps and web ontology can be created directly by communities of practice.
Let us be clear. In the two projects now being discussed, communities may be empowered to replace professional programmers and professional information scientists with a collaborative process mediated by very simple to use tools. These tools will assist the community in developing managed vocabularies, process models and data object definitions. The bias that the Second School talks about will not control the resulting information infrastructure for the community.
The costs? The cost comes in the form of a requirement that the community as a whole come to understand the nature of human communication. This cost becomes less of a burden if part of the scholarly community makes the nature of human language and human intentionality a lot clearer. Several mechanisms for a transformation of the current information science have been proposed, but in essence the new information science carries a lot of the existing knowledge of scientists and scholars into a new context. Specific errors are identified and alternative viewpoints are developed.
Universals are in fact either “ontological” or perceptual categories that “stand in for” a particular aspect of something concrete. Let me give a simple example. The concept of “two” is a universal and stands-in-for the concept of a quantity when “two” items are being referenced. Counting is part of those particular capabilities of humans, and to a very much greater extent some higher mammals. The set of integers are creations of the human mind. Even the notion of a set is created from the mind’s ability to create category. The point is that humans create abstractions, such as the feeling of love for one another. These abstractions organize our perceptions of reality.
In foundations of ontological modeling one really must deal successfully with the particular to universal relationship, and in many cases this distinction between the particular and the universal is discounted. First, the universal is not an absolute; and yet this assertion is often the basis for profound confusion stemming from the philosophical literatures. The assertion of absolutes seems to stem from a behavior that is deeply rooted in the way we humans happen to be. Religious studies can sometimes help us understand the nature of absolutes by systematically examining the nature of fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is only part of a larger challenge that human society faces.
How can fundamentalism be overcome without asserting the non-validity of the concept of Divinity and of a higher self or spiritual nature? The answer is clear. One asserts multi-culturalism as is already done by many people. Multi-culturalism requires that independent viewpoints be separately developed as ontology. Each of these viewpoints is considered to be valid viewpoints that are not absolutes, but rather “relative universals”. Relative universals might best be regarded as contextual knowledge. We will have more to say about contextual knowledge as the knowledge management solution proposed by myself (in many past proposals and in many design documents) is built out. The development is occurring within the internal R&D component of the company OntologyStream Inc.
To be clear, we are not asserting anything absolute about “human nature”. The point we make is simply that traditional scholarship may in fact lead certain inquiries into profound error. This error has to do with the assertion of one’s own understanding as a “universal truth”. This assertion is a type of fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism has a slippery slope leading to and from the assertion of one’s own limited understanding as if an absolute. This kind of fundamentalism has huge impact in what we commonly call information science. The impact is one that is both hidden and obvious. To face this issue is to deal squarely with paradox and the will of various communities holding strong assertions.
Many developments in our recent history points forward into a new paradigm where “universals” are contextual. For example, there is a quality of perception that, finally, is developing in both the OWL [2] and Topic Maps communities. This “professional” perception is related to how to “reify” knowledge representation into categories using direct experience, without asserting that the representation is absolute. There is a substantial history that led to this professional perception. Let me just hint at some highlights. Initially the concept of relative universal was developed using the concept of a “namespace”. Why namespaces are essential is still not understood well in the IT community. On the surface namespaces are related to context and viewpoint. To gain this understanding of namespaces one may end up addressing the spiritual viewpoint as well as to work through a well-grounded justification for allowing multiple viewpoints.
Contextual issues related to multiple viewpoints are difficult issues over which wars are commonly fought. Our past cultural inability to use a foundational knowledge to resolve conflicts between various points of view is obvious. What is also obvious is that our society will not longer endure these conflicts. There are just too many people living on this planet and some of us have grown too powerful.
Given a simple set of collaborative tools the orientation of individuals within the education communities [3] will shift and this shift will allow the members of those communities to take control over the IT services needed to achieve transformational goals.
The argument made in the Resilience Project White Paper is that IT imposes an artificial form of fundamentalism by creating the data model for the communities rather than creating tools that empowering the community itself to take control over the dynamic formation of category. (See the simple PowerPoint presentation, “Who is in Control”.)
In formative ontology (Prueitt, 1997 – 2001) the distinction between universal and particular is essential since ontological models are thought of, within my work, as emerging in the moment from a substrate of ontological categories, i.e. universals that are atomic as opposed to of a compound; AND the natures of the particular instance. (See also my work on the tri-level architecture.) The work on tri-level theory is extensive and difficult for many who are trained traditionally.
The fact is that the measurement of social discourse can be converted into a dynamic series of ontologies composed of universals. [4] [5] This is done in some intelligence systems by various governments and corporations. [6]
The measurement of the social discourse has in most or all cases been done poorly, again due to the influence of business processes on the development of the core science. What we have been funding is artificial intelligence as a discipline rather than “active intelligence” that manifest only when one human is interacting in special ways with computer system and his or her own mind. So the measurement up to now has been confused and secrete.
However, this measurement might be done well if the person using one of my systems understands about how natural categories form. [7] The measurement may be of the natures and substance of what Karl Jung called the “collective consciousness”. The nature of mass intelligence is demonstrated in the phenomenon of the wiki, and in particular wikipedia.
In fact, in most cases that I know of, the proper measurement is missing. Why? Simple observation gives us the answer. Perceptual measurement is not a subject that is well developed or well understood by governments or corporations, perhaps fortunately. It is not something that is even an object of study in the universities; except in rare cases. In almost all of these rare cases, the core issues have been distorted by confusion and disinterest. This situation is changing but only in a deep struggle with the old paradigm where collective intelligence is assumed to be an empty concept.
Everyone should contemplate the implications of having an improper foundation to information theory.
The situation we have is a confused information science. This situation is about to change. After the change it will be possible for a simple person living anywhere in the world to interact with a perceptual measurement [8] via an emerging system of symbols created by the interaction. The technology is that simple.
What are the consequences?
What will the War on Terrorism, if we are still fighting this absurd war, be like after the current incorrect information science is displaced! What if only the most radical elements of the world’s society adopt corrected information science and technology?
The possible strikes that we may take is not the only problem, we also face our own exuberant reaction to these future strikes. The war issue can be ignored and the impact of a simplification of information science is still huge. (See the second section of the White Paper..(link) )
Let us return to the present.
Process mapping, such as what is to be done by the PhoenX Group, is a process that creates the categories of process states and links these categories into a model. The perception of category comes from a group activity such as a workshop. These workshops are part of a large program where the models are posted on the Internet and community based discussion, wiki and e-forms, are used to evolve ontological models of the variety of processes.
Ontologystream Inc has developed a technology that breaks the description of process events and linkage into atomic universals. These universals have the property that any new process event can (in all but special cases) be seen as a compound of those atoms. (See my work on J. S. Mill’s logic and Soviet era applied semiotics – link.)
The PhoenX Group’s active intelligence technology will create process maps, topic maps and ontological models about emerging trends in complex social environments (like the educational institutions or a collective of small green energy producers [60].) Part of the technology that will be used is the technology developed by OntologyStream Inc.
A few personal remarks are in order. I would prefer to, eventually, have a background role were I could do the underlying control technology over micro-processes in a green energy grid [60]. As I have remarked elsewhere, I believe that the same underlying ontology technology will be useful in developing an international standard over the processes in educational systems. I have taken the leadership role on the initial discussion and I would like to develop specific knowledge management methodology and technology in the near future. Let me make it clear that the leadership role is not what I am interested in, but if there is no process moving forward in this vital area, then I will lead.
Soon I hope to have an open web presence for a “glass bead game” - type discussion where community college presidents [9] feel empowered to contribute the viewpoint of the scholar and academic on the nature of IT in educational systems. The concept of “Digital-Schools” is explained in the bead [64].
It has been my position, in the Resilience Project White Paper for example, that the IT sector has become partially, or even fully, parasitic on many of our cultural institutions, such as the military, the government, our entertainment industry and our educational institutions. While providing service and social value, the IT sector has also created an artificial dependency rather than “completing computer science”, and then moving on to the next innovation wave. [10] Computer science has become “for” the IT sector, and this is particularly true of many of the high-end research projects involving super computers and national laboratories. The argumentation here is consistent with extensive debates I have had with others within the area, I will not repeat this argumentation here.
So again, the possibility is that the Digital-Colleges concept will allow the development of a (new) knowledge management technology.
It was never my intent to criticize individual people. I have been critical of the failure at all levels; academically, culturally and in the US government. I have been critical of an academic community that has not acknowledged these limitations. I have been critical of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent directly on (total non-sense). In fact, the exposure of the entrenched use of the limitations, to create artificial dependency, in formal systems (databases, Hilbert mathematics, ontological modeling) has lead to my proposal for a 6.8 billion dollar (first year funding) project to redefine information science. (link)
6.8 billion is 2% of the 338 billion spent by the e-Gov program (2000-2006). [11]
For a scholarly presentation of my viewpoint see (Prueitt, 1997)
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm
One of our strategies has been to involve the community college presidents in California (and in other states) in the development of a set of universals related to the processes that occur in the educational institutions (world wide). These universals are to be developed, as a business process, by process mapping exercises where particular processes are objectified in process mapping exercises.
By work product I mean..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_production
We are attempting to get into an invested position the formation business processes that create some appropriate wiki, process modeling and topic map web collaborative resources (initially strongly moderated by myself - I hope) leading to a SOA type (OASIS) standard on processes in education.
The high level over view envisions the creation of a business process that
1) models complex social processes (fully informed by the concept that
human choice points may be informed by blueprints aggregated from an underlying
stratified ontology
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Preface.htm
1.1) I have spoken to several others about applying this business to
the design and funding of solar, wind and elevated water grid systems where the
2) removes IT consulting from the university and college community
entirely by developing completely open source foundational software for
modeling processes.
The link below shows work done last year by education commons, funded by Sun Microsystems.
http://educationcommons.org/projects/display/CSSSS/Workshop+II+Products
I feel that it is possible to use the work done by www.educationcommons.org (sponsored and funded by Sun Microsystems with volunteer work by two or three IT professions at MIT and Georgetown) and being done as both an indication of what process modeling brings in terms of "universals", and the issue that arise. The benefits can also be seen in template process maps such as
http://educationcommons.org/projects/display/CSSSS/Learning+unit+template+development+process
Given our many discussions about "participatory education" I wonder if you might comment on the language and viewpoint that I am developing regarding how to create an International Standard over Educational Processes that
1) does consider Dewey's philosophy about the nature of education (as a
process that bring the past to the present but does not acknowledge the unique
nature of the individual student or the individual instance. - the expression
of time has no structure.) I am looking
for reading material that helps me talk about the relationship of the particular
to the universal.)
2) does consider a fully engineered financial foundation to the
institutions of education, while also considering the uniqueness that each
institution is embedded.
3) specifically treats the openness that complex social institutions
have as an essential nature.
I know that these discussions are difficult. Perhaps soon we will have the web resources that I have designed over and over again for the past ten years. Given the current tools, in particular wikis, this is not such a big matter technical or in terms of investment.
[1] For a new and excellent review of Wiki use see the book
Tapscott, Don and Williams Anthony; 2007 “Wikinomics”.
[2] Web Ontology Language: see www.w3.org
[3] The two community we are currently envisioning are (1) an emerging green power community and (2) the educational leadership community
[4] Prueitt, Paul S (2003) Mapping the expression of social symbols
[5] Prueitt, Paul S (2002) Global Information Framework
[6] See a new discussion that may start with a consortium of IT businesses, NCOIC http://www.secondschool.net/beads/ontologyMapping/66.htm
[7] Oh come on this statement is not so hard to understand.
[8] I do not wish to give the impression that “perception” as I am using the word is describing human perception alone. By perceptual measurement, I have come to mean instrumented measurement and real time interpretation, by a single human being, of the outputs of a rather complete set of measurements.
[9] Digital Colleges (www.digital-Colleges.net) is being developed as an Education Common dedicated to taking the input of Americas community college presidents.
[10] Have we bought into the notion that the IT sector like the war on terrorism may always be renewed as a activity ? Both have to end, the IT sector will not be the first industry that developed and then was abandoned.
[11] The figure
of 338 billion is taken from K.
E. Fountain, "Prospects for the Virtual State (2004)