Glen (and anyone else trying to follow) -
I left out an important point in all of this, I think. The work going
into building "ontologies" for various (sub)domains is roughly the act
of building a shared, formalized "constraint sieve". My interest is in
developing a working environment for ensembles of these.
- Steve
Glen -
And just to add a completely different perspective (via a different
physical system metaphor) on this topic:
As a dabbler in holography, this whole problem of a shared information
mess and the idea of constraint sieves reminds me a lot of the process
of recording (in a lossy way of course) the interference patterns of a
coherent signal (e.g.object beam from a long-coherence length laser)
bouncing off of many objects and then at a later time (re)creating the
original collective wave-front from that recording.
The journalistic record, for example, is created by a host of
journalists trained in a specific observational and reporting
methodology (with many variations of course, especially if you include
the blogosphere as "journalism"). We then read articles about events
we did not experience directly and try to reconstruct an understanding
of "what happened" and possibly even it's relevance to other events.
The body of scientific knowledge, ditto. Sieved through a host of
scientists, their methodology(ies) and the peer-review and publication
process.
For Intelligence Analysts, the same is true, but with a different (but
similar) set of methodologies and access to secret (hidden from
others, from most) holograms to superpose and try to find a POV to
view them from and find specific hidden (obscured by intent or
circumstance) information.
Thanks for sharing the "constraint sieve" description....
Carry on!
- Steve
On 10/27/2013 06:59 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:
On 10/27/2013 03:12 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Colloquially, one might simply say "one person's mess is another's
order"...
This is a good example. It seems pretty straightforward and obvious
that
this is the case, but I think it has more to do with the schema for
organisation: if the schema is not open, it is hard to discern.
Or, perhaps, that schema are illusory ... they don't actually exist
and are an epiphenomenon of the constraint sieve that is our (common)
anatomy and physiology? If that's the case, then every person's mess
is just the variance/uncertainty allowed by the (dynamic) sieve that
is their body/mind. Hence, the more sieves you can chain/network
together, the more orderly the mess.
Some of us, of course, resist being chained together. For example, I
usually refrain from sieving someone else's mess, when I can. But
because my sieve is ... uh ... coarse-grained and irregular ... when
I do sieve a mess, I usually just make a bigger mess. Somehow, the
input must be leaky.
============================================================
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 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
