• From: "Len" <cbullard@h...>
• To: <srn@c...>, "'Len Bullard'" <len.bullard@u...>
• Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:27:31 -0500

Base maps aren't authoritative.  They are a means for sharing consensus so
we can achieve more in community than we can alone, but a base map can be
verified against the terrain before a symbology is applied.  The symbols are
the ontology.

If a map is incompatible with another map, that can be noted.  It can't
always be resolved unless that commonly mapped is consulted.  If there is no
commonality, there is no conflict.

len



From: Steve Newcomb [mailto:srn@c...]
 
John Sowa's "Lattice of Theories" notion is interesting. It 
recognizes that it's useful to express intersections between 
different universes of discourse governed by incompatible 
ontologies.  The Topic Maps Reference Model is interesting, 
too. It establishes a standard rhetoric for expressing such 
wormholes.  In both cases, there's no requirement for a 
"base map".  I think these kinds of ideas show the way 
forward, because they sidestep any requirement that 
everybody agrees about anything before information from 
different perspectives can be integrated, or before 
information expressed in terms of a given perspective can 
become useful to people who don't share it.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "XML is just syntax" versus "Use semantic markup" (Is this a paradox?)
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@c...>

• References:
  • Re: "XML is just syntax" versus "Use semantic markup" (Is this a paradox?)
    • From: Steve Newcomb <srn@c...>