[open-science] [okfn-discuss] Community Integration?: Afterthoughts

[Jack Park]

Brent (et al), one more thing:

The reference here was to "concept maps".  In these slides:
http://www.slideshare.net/jackpark/issip20140910

I offer a few slides which explain the differences between "mind maps",
"concept maps", and "topic maps".  The order of those three begins with
simplest, and ends with most complex.

A point about complexity is this.
In a mind map, you just have lines among the nodes, with no labels. In a
concept map, you have labels on the arcs, so you can read that, e.g. "a
causes b". In a topic map, you do something automatically that you could do
in concept maps, which is turn "causes" into its own topic.  You do that
because any causal claim can a)have a biography, and b)be the target for
debate, so you want your important relations to be topics themselves.

Vastly more complex, but vastly more expressive when you are deep in the
bowels of teasing out some relation between, say, some gene, and some
disease.

Cheers
Jack

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Jack Park <jackpark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Brent,
>
> Many thanks for the links!
> Indeed, that thesis is right in line with the kinds of things that many
> people are thinking and doing.
>
> Many of us followed Douglas Engelbart, who, while best known for the
> mouse, windows, and other UX ideas coming out of his lab, is well known for
> arguing in favor of what he calls a "Dynamic Knowledge Repository" (DKR),
> which is defined as the combination of people, their knowledge (to share)
> and tools with which they share and organize their knowledge. So, this
> work, and knowledge graphs organized by ontologies, is right in line with
> Open Science.
>
> Side note: in a lecture in Seoul in 2007, at the suggestion of Ted Kahn, I
> switched the name "dynamic knowledge repository" to, instead, "dynamic
> knowledge garden".  I was then asked to drop "dynamic", so most of my
> slides at slideshare talk about knowledge gardening.
>
> Svetlana started a "knowledge graph" at debategraph.org (link in the pad)
> and invited me in (it's public and others should feel invited to
> contribute) to help her get started.  In that graph, I suggested setting it
> up with a Terminology subgraph, which holds terms (think: poor-person's
> ontology) which then "tag" nodes elsewhere in the graph to tie things
> together and, in a sense, semantically anchor them.
>
> My argument was, and remains this:
> There is plenty of evidence to suggest that unless and until you identify
> first the purpose of the platform -- in Svetlana's case: PlanetOpenScience
> (which I would categorize as a "knowledge federation" [1] --and then follow
> that with identifying use cases and scenarios which are entailed in the
> purpose statement.  From that, requirements fall out for platform selection
> or design.  Sounds a lot like ISO9000, I suppose, but there is merit, if
> you plan to hire an ISP and put something up, in thinking a bit about it
> first.
>
> Many thanks, Brent.
> Cheers,
> Jack
> [1] http://www.knowledgefederation.org/
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Brent Shambaugh <
> brent.shambaugh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack,
>>
>> Perhaps this will be of interest to you {1}. Basically you have some sort
>> of tool that allows a user to build a concept map, which can later be
>> parsed (with user assistance) using existing ontologies on the web allowing
>> for information integration. By M. Fernandez I meant Miriam Fernandez's
>> thesis [2]:
>>
>> {1}
>> http://adistributedeconomy.blogspot.com/2014/10/concept-map-to-structured-data.html
>> [2] http://nets.ii.uam.es/miriam/thesis.pdf
>>
>> -Brent Shambaugh
>>
>> Website: bshambaugh.org
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Jack Park <jackpark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A pad might make sense.
>>> I'd like to toss in an idea that builds on Jenny's "map of the
>>> participants" by adding a "map of the topics they share" (a topic map,
>>> which includes people, their topics, and relations among all of them).
>>> Topics could easily be extended to include projects, lab notebooks, data,
>>> and even software.
>>>
>>> If a particular software becomes a topic in a topic map, it can then be
>>> connected to its users, projects using it, data it processed, reports
>>> generated by the work, and so forth.
>>>
>>> If the topic map also happens to include topics each of which is a
>>> question, claim, or argument from conversations around projects, then the
>>> entire map contains all that is knowable to it as generated by the
>>> participants.
>>>
>>> If a topic happens to be a biomolecule under study, then, in effect, the
>>> topic map grants a social life to that molecule.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Svetlana Belkin <belkinsa at ubuntu.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2014 07:58 AM, Jenny Molloy wrote:
>>>> > Open science are definitely keen - how about a meta-community sprint
>>>> > next week? I can spend some focused time on this and we can explore
>>>> > different ideas and try out things from the list of suggestions on the
>>>> > open-science thread you've linked.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but how are we going to do this?  IRC and Pad?  Or Skype and Pad?
>>>>
>>>> >[SNIP]
>>>>
>>>> Reply to this message:
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010648.html
>>>>
>>>> And [SNIP] part of this reply is here:
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010649.html
>>>> --
>>>> Svetlana Belkin
>>>> A.K.A: belkinsa
>>>> User Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/belkinsa
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20141015/df5da81a/attachment-0003.html>