[FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[Steven A Smith]

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 <sasmyth at swcp.com> 
>> 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
>