Features of Formats for Thinking

One oftwelve projects at theMinciu Sodas virtual laboratory.  We have collected this material in the public domain and we invite you to copy and share it.  Please acknowledge our contributors!  Organized byAndrius Kulikauskas.Features of Formats for Thinking
Components of standards for structuring information, and how each might be expressed within a universal format for thoughts.  Standards for information usually include auxiliary fields devoted to harmonizing records, for example, last update.  Various standards might work better together if these auxiliary fields were understood within a broader framework. Communities of thinkers can learn from such auxiliary fields, in their search for "rules of the road" for cooperation that would discourage unhelpful discussions.  Of special interest to: Community organizers, standards developers.
Andrius Kulikauskas invites you to complete his survey of thinkersWhat is your favorite standard?  You will find many answers to his survey here.  We are happy to award memberships to those who help build up our projects.  Please write to us at ms@ms.lt
Your answers are of special importance to our investigationLinking Locally is Thinking Globally, lead byAndrius Kulikauskas and sponsored byTheBrain, LLC.  With your help, we are developing animport/export standard for aggregates of notes.
Thoughts
Assuming this standard was used or abused for the purpose of representing thoughts.
Usage as standard for thoughts: In what sense is the standard used, or could be used for representing thoughts?  What might be the advantages and disadvantages?
Concept of thought: What entity does the standard define that might be interpreted as a thought, as an encapsulation of an idea?  (I should give additional questions that help make more clear what to look for)  Please list all entities that might play such a role.
Structure of thought: What is the typical structure of that entity?  What kind of information does the entity typically store, and why?  Please include the main features, required and optional.  Please provide an example.
Usage as standard for thoughts: Topic Maps
ISO/IEC 13250:2000 standard defines a model and interchange syntax for Topic Maps. And, Topic Maps are destined for:
-- thought positioning in the information universe;
-- conceptual modelling of large sets of information resources, representation of thought context information;
-- annotating, organising, navigating  large and continuously growing information pools.
Topic Maps could be used as intermediate format for import/export of thought aggregates. I.e., when there is a need to convert the thought set of A-format (e.g.,TheBrain) into B-format (e.g.,MindJet), it is converted into: (1) the Topic Map of those thoughts + (2) set of representations of content of elementary thoughts.
The set of elementary thought representations - can be a set of files, each of which represent a separate thought. Here, file-names are thought identifiers. Files can be in ASCII (or HTML, RTF) text format, or in some specialised multimedia format (for figures, photos, sounds, video, ...). When the "(1) + (2)" is prepared, that is converted into the corresponding thought set of B-format.  [Saulius Maskeliunas, 4/00]
Preparing the standard of import/export of thought aggregates on the basis of  ISO/IEC 13250:2000 Topic Maps standard would require much less time and energy resources, because the syntax is ready, and only the  m e t h o d  of using Topic Maps as intermediate format for import/export of thoughts - should be prepared, discussed, tested, and standardised. [Saulius Maskeliunas, 4/00]
The difficulty with TopicMaps is they represent the Network part of  Hierarchy/Network/Sequence (i.e., my Tree/Star/Flow, seehttp://one-world-is.com/rer/owis/dem/slides/img112.gif) well, but tend to implement the other two poorly. TopicMaps are also extremely complex, even in their newness to XML, because many of the elaborate constructs of their SGML/Hytime legacy were brought forward, thus overburdening the new XML-Topicmaps baby with a huge burden from its parent's past. Unfortunately, XML-Topimaps (XTM) is not a simplification of SGML-Topicmaps, but seems to be a fairly full conversion. (If you consider what percentage of SGML workers used TopicMaps and you'll understand how complex I believe it to be.) [Roy Roebuck, 2/00]
Usage as Standard for Thoughts: IrMC  The IrMC standard enables the sending or retrieving of IrMC objects.  Level 1 information access, the simplest, involves a single object; level 2 - a store of objects; level 3 - a single object using static indices (growing in sequence, starting with 0); level 4 - a single object using unique indices (any finite set of integers).  Level 4 makes possible retrieving a list of objects that have changed, for the purposes of synchronization.   [Andrius Kulikauskas, 4/00]
Concept for Thought: Topic Maps
TOPIC  Thought, idea = TOPIC, with all components of it [see: the answer to question "6)"]. Instance of thought = item of INFORMATION RESOURCE.
Collection of thoughts = TOPIC MAP [i.e., thought context definition] + INFORMATION RESOURCE(S) [i.e., set(s) of simple items of thoughts].  [Saulius Maskeliunas, 4/00]
Concept for Thought: IrMC  The IrMC standard defines an IrMC Object as an object, in other words, a record or entry, stored on an IrMC device, such as a mobile phone.  Typical IrMC Objects are Phone Book Objects (business card info), Calendar Objects (to-do list entries), Device Information Objects, Change Logs, Message Objects and Note Objects.   [Andrius Kulikauskas, 4/00]
Structure of Concept: Topic Maps  TOPIC can store everything (i.e., characterisation, links, references), except thought content  which is loaded separately in some INFORMATION RESOURCE(S). Main features of TOPIC are NAME(S), ASSOCIATIONS and OCCURRENCE(S). The only required feature is BASE NAME of a TOPIC (i.e., thought); all other features are optional. From the paper: H.H. Rath "Technical Issues on Topic Maps"
An example from:http://www.topicmaps.com/lit/ms99/hhr.pdf :
(topics): Canada, Québec, Montréal, MetaStructures 99.
(topic types): country, province, city, conference.
(base / display / sort name): Quebec / Québec / quebec.
(occurrence role types): chart, article, video, call for participation.
(association types): is in, takes place in.
(association role types): province / country, city / province, conference / city.
(scopes): to distinguish between Paris in France, Paris in Texas, and Paris the Greek hero, assign the scopes France, USA, and Greek mythology to the three topics.  [Saulius Maskeliunas, 4/00]
Structure of Concept: IrMC  The Phone Book Object is based on the vCard 2.1 format, and the Calendar Object is based on the vCalendar 1.0 format, which are defined atwww.imc.org.  The vMessage formats for In Box, Out Box and Sent Box, and the vNote format were all created by the IrMC.  X-IRMC-FIELDS is a dynamic field mapping that allows these formats to be further extended with additional fields.  A sample Phone Book Object:
BEGIN: VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N: Minciu Sodas
TEL:  +370 (2) 60-67-38
ADR: 123 Main Str., Vilnius, Lithuania
END:VCARD
A vNote is defined in the IrMC specification as:
{
"BEGIN:VNOTE"
"VERSION:"
[ "X-IRMC-LUID:" ]
[ "DCREATED:" ]
[ "LAST-MODIFIED:" ]
[ "SUMMARY" * ”:” default-char-not-lf>* ]
"BODY" * ”:” *
[ "CATEGORIES:" * ]
[ "CLASS:" ]
"END:VNOTE"
}
where:
::= “1.1” ; only currently supported version is 1.1
::= “PRIVATE” | “PUBLIC” | “CONFIDENTIAL”
::= “;”
::= ‘Encoding, Character set and Language property parameters as defined in [vCard].
The relationships between thoughts.
What kinds of relationships does the standard allow between thoughts?  How are they expressed?  (I should give examples of what is a relationship, what to look for, including aggregation).  Please give examples.
What are the global structural restrictions on the relationships? (I should give a list of structural types, and also "other")
What purposes, in practice, do the relationships serve?  Please give examples.
What means, if any, does the standard provide for defining new kinds of relationships, or new restrictions on relationships?
In what sense may the relationships themselves be understood to be thoughts? What features may the relationships have?
Notes:Saulius Maskeliunas regarding Topic Maps
Subject: [ourownthoughts] "theorist's" survey of Topic Maps (completed)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:16:04 +0200
From: "Saulius Maskeliunas" <>
Reply-To: ourownthoughts@egroups.com
To: ourownthoughts@egroups.com
Hello,
I'm sending you all answers (not only 10-17), because (1-9; 18-20) were corrected somewhere.
Modifications in (1-9; 18-20) are marked with "| " on the beginning of corresponding lines.
Wishes, --  S.M.
> http://www.ms.lt/ms/projects/formatkinds/000310survey.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> What is your favorite standard?
> Survey of Standards for Representing Thoughts
_ _ _ _
> G e n e r a l   q u e s t i o n s
> 0) What is your favorite standard? (for the purposes of this survey)
Topic Maps standard
> and why?
| relevant, sufficiently powerful, valid as ISO standard
> 1) What is the official name of the standard,
ISO/IEC 13250:2000
Information technology -- SGML Applications -- Topic Maps
ICS field: 35.240.30 IT applications in information, documentation and publishing.
Stage: International Standard Published on Feb. 10, 2000 (i.e., the International harmonized stage code is 60.60 ).
> and its abbreviation and unofficial names, if any?
TNM (Topic Navigation Maps),
"Global Positioning System (GPS) of the information universe".
> 2) What are websites with helpful information regarding the standard?
in ISO Online Database: http://www.iso.ch/cate/d21485.html
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:38:21 -0800, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote:
* From: "Eric Freese"
* Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:59:03 -0600
* To learn more about topic maps there are 2 sites that are be of interest:
* http://www.infoloom.com/topmap.htm (info and text of standard available)
* http://www.topicmaps.com (XML DTD and sample application and several articles available)
> 3) What standards body is responsible for developing this standard?
Working Group 3 of Sub-Committee 34 of ISO/IEC's Joint Technical
Committee (ISO/IEC JTC 1 / SC 34 / WG 3), i.e., ISO's SMGL working group.
> 4) What individuals and/or enterprises are the main organizers? Where can they be approached,
[cited from S.Pepper's paper http://www.topicmaps.com/lit/xmleur99/stp.pdf ]:
Individuals: "Michael Biezunski (original editor and architect),
Martin Bryan and Steve Newcomb (editors),
Eliot Kimber, Peter Newcomb, Sam Hunting (additional major contributors).
Enterprises: GCA Research Institute, Open Software Foundation",
The STEP Group (http://www.step.de, http://www.infotek.no, http://www.step.pl),
ISOGEN International/DataChannel (http://www.isogen.com), etc.
> in which discussion groups,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:01:24 -0800, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote:
* Subject:          [whetherwhat] XTM discussion group
* [...] XTM (XML Topic Map) discussion group topicmapmail@infoloom.com .
* You can join by writing to Michel Biezunski, mb@infoloom.com, that you want to subscribe.
> at what conferences?
at the past: XML Europe'99, Granada, Espana; Markup Technologies'99, Philadelphia, USA;
Metastructures'99, Montreal, Canada; XTech'2000, San Jose, USA.
> 5)
[here, citations are taken from S.Pepers paper
http://www.topicmaps.com/lit/xmleur99/stp.pdf ]
>What is the purpose of this standard?
"This ISO/IEC 13250 standard defines a model and interchange syntax
for Topic Maps".
> What underlying human need does it address?
"Providing access to information based on a model of the knowledge it
contains"
> What problem does it solve?
"Merging of indexes, tables of contents, glossaries, thesauri,
cross references, etc."
> What capabilities does it add?
"[this standard] can serve as basis for navigation information; in
| many contexts (i.e., in reference work publishing, legal publishing,
commercial and technical publishing) it may also be seen as the
fundamental organising principle for the creation and maintenance of
information."
Quoting the abstract of  Rath and Pepper paper http://www.topicmaps.com/lit/mt99/hhr-stp.pdf :
"This standard defines a model and architecture for the semantic
structuring of link networks".
Saying in my words,
-- Topic Maps are generalised views of Information Resources;
a case of conceptual modelling of problem areas, represented by
multiple multimedia information resources;
-- Topic Maps represent the model of knowledge which is contained in
some information resource(s).
> 6) What are the key concepts that this standard introduces or makes noteable use of?
***TOPIC***
-- can be  c h a r a c t e r i s e d :
with NAME
t y p e d  into:
Base Name (required),
Display Name (optional),
Sort Name (optional).
with ROLE,
with OCCURRENCE.
Characterisation  can be  a s p e c t i s e d :
by THEME
into *SCOPE*.
-- can be  i n s t a n t i a t e d :
with **OCCURRENCES**
which can be  c h a r a c t e r i s e d :
with OCCUR. ROLE,
with OCCUR. TYPE.
in INFORMATION RESOURCES
which can be  f i l t e r e d :
with *FACETS*
by FACET VALUES.
-- can be  l i n k e d :
into **ASSOCIATIONS**
which can be  c h a r a c t e r i s e d :
with ASSOC. TYPE.
-- can be  m e r g e d :
with IDENTITY ATTRIBUTE
into *PUBLIC SUBJECT*.
| Here TOPIC, OCCURRENCES, ASSOCIATIONS - main entities;
SCOPE, FACETS, PUBLIC SUBJECT - "second order" entities;
remaining - "third order" entities.
| Graphically, it would be good to represent [as in TheBrain]:
| -- c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n  aspect of the topic - on the right to a topic;
-- i n s t a n t i a t i o n  aspect of the topic - below the topic;
| -- l i n k i n g  aspect of the topic - on the left to a topic;
-- m e r g i n g  aspect of the topic - above the topic.
> 7) What is the conceptual history of this standard?
See, Rath and Pepper paper http://www.topicmaps.com/lit/mt99/hhr-stp.pdf :
| -- 1991 "Davenport" group: development of standard for software
documentation;
-- problem how to merge indexes;
-- at Open Software Foundation: indexes conform to models of the
structure of the knowledge available in the materials that they
index;
-- "Davenport" group split into: group to develop DocBook and
the group working on Conventions for application of HyTime (CApH)
under GCARI;
-- CApH went on to develop several ways of modelling Topic Maps;
-- ISO SGML working group accepted TNM as a new work item in 1997;
-- implementations in reference work publishing;
-- ISO/IEC 13250:2000 standard published;
-- now: creating Topic Maps XML (TML); applying this standard to the
Web.
> What forces - including economic and political - have affected its
> development, and how?
| -- The need to merge indexes, etc. of encyclopaedic and dictionary
information gave the first push in preparing the standard, and
current implementation areas (starting the international STEP Group
activity).
-- the emergence of XML standard(s) now is forcing to prepare TML
(Topic Map XML) version of this standard.
> 8) How is this standard related to other standards?
-1- HyTime:
Conventions for the application of HyTime standard [i.e., ISO/IEC
10744:1997 Information technology -- Hypermedia/Time-based
|  Structuring Language, http://www.iso.ch/cate/d29303.html ] inspired
and guided Topic Maps standards development.
-2- SGML:
http://www.topicmaps.com/lit/xmleur99/stp.pdf :
"The standard interchange representation of topic maps is defined in
terms of an SGML architecture. A topic map is basically an SGML (or
XML) document (or set of documents) in which different element
types, derived from a basic set of architectural forms, are used to
|  represent topics, occurrences of topics, and relationships (or
``associations``) between topics".
"The topic map standard as it finally emerged defines both an
abstract data model and an SGML-based serialization syntax for
representing knowledge structures and linking them to information resources.
-3- XML, Xpath, Xlink:
An XML-based serialization syntax will be defined once the W3C's
recommendations for XML-based linking and addressing have been finalised.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:59:03 -0600  Eric Freese wrote:
"A working group, of which I am a member, has been formed to apply
this standard to the Web using XML, Xpath, and Xlink, possibly for
submission to the W3C.  It currently being called XTM (XML Topic Maps)".
> In particular, is the standard used to define other standards, and if so, what kinds?
| This standard could be used to serve as basis defining the thought
interchange standard.
> 9) What software tools can be used to work with information structured by the standard?
Tools for working with SGML/XML documents.
| On Tue Feb 22, 2000 12:41pm, Roy Roebuck wrote:
| * Download X2X at http://www.stepuk.com/x2xdocs/x2xdocs.html .
| * X2X is a web-client/web-server environment for creating, storing,
| * and using TopicMaps/XLinks, using JDBC to an MS Access store on
| * an NT machine or JDBC/ODBC/SQL on a Unix machine. Their
| * documentation on how to set up their demo is not well sequenced,
| * with a few oversights, and it took me about a half hour to set it
| * up, but it works as advertised.
_ _ _ _
> Q u e s t i o n s   a b o u t   r e l a t i o n s h i p s   b e t w e e n   t h o u g h t s  (the entities
> described above).
>
> 13) What kinds of relationships does the standard allow between
> thoughts?  How are they expressed?  (I should give examples of what
> is a relationship, what to look for, including aggregation).
-- universal relationships, expressed as typed ASSOCIATIONS;
-- specialised (instantiating and merging) relationships, expressed
with OCCURRENCES and IDENTITY ATTRIBUTES;
-- extended relationships, which are described as self-dependent TOPICS.
> Please give examples.
See below: the answer to question "15)".
> 14) What are the global structural restrictions on the
> relationships? (I should give a list of structural types, and also
> "other")
That must be expressed within the framework of concepts of
Topic Maps [presented in the answer to question "6)"].
> 15) What purposes, in practice, do the relationships serve?  Please
> give examples.
-- instantiation of thought with OCCURRENCE
(e.g., indicating a source file with information to some thought),
-- linking of 2 thoughts with typed ASSOCIATION
(e.g., thought-A causes thought-B),
-- merging of 2 thoughts with synonymous names into PUBLIC SUBJECT
(e.g., 2 alternative descriptions presented by different authors
of the same subject).
> 16) What means, if any, does the standard provide for defining new
> kinds of relationships, or new restrictions on relationships?
Users can define relationships (ASSOCIATIONS) as belonging to needed
new kind (ASSOCIATION TYPE).
> 17) In what sense may the relationships themselves be understood to
> be thoughts?
Topic Maps standard allows define relationships recursively as
thoughts.  I.e., the standard allows to describe ASSOCIATIONS,
PUBLIC SUBJECTS, SCOPES, INFORMATION RESOURCES,  FACETS
as TOPICS.
> What features may the relationships have?
ASSOCIATION relationships have ASSOCIATION TYPES;
OCCURRENCES have ROLES and TYPES.
In addition, relationships can have all features which are
allowed for TOPICS [see: answer to question "6)"].
_ _ _ _
> 18) Your name and email:
| Saulius Maskeliunas,, http://www.science.mii.lt/mii_an/zmon_an/maskeliu.htm
> 20) Other comments:
| Using the ISO/IEC 13250:2000 Topic Maps standard as a basis
| designing the standard for import/export of thought aggregates
| [according to the technique presented in the answer to question "10)"],
| in my opinion, do not contradict to ideas of Ben Darnell (see: his e-letter
| Date sent: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:02:14 -0500; Subject: [ourownthoughts] Alternate conceputal structure )
| [which I like very much], and encompass Andrius'  Sequences, Networks and Hierarchies
| as ASSOCIATIONS with TYPE: "N", "S", "HU", "HO", "HR", "ND", "NN".
_ _ _ _