[om-list] Fwd: Re: What I feel from your writings

[Luke A. Call]

[#5 of 7]

----- Forwarded message from "Luke A. Call" <luke350 at onemodel.org> -----

Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:04:34 -0600
From: "Luke A. Call" <luke350 at onemodel.org>
To: Jean Louis <bugs at gnu.support>
Subject: Re: [om-list] What I feel from your writings

On 2021-05-17 23:57:31+0300, Jean Louis <bugs at gnu.support> wrote:
> - unless user clicks About, installation is hard to find. Normally,
>   expectation is that installation instruction is somewhere on front
>   page, but it is not.
> - from About page, one has to click Getting Started, or it is not
>   findable;

On the front page of the site, the link "Download, Installation, & Code"
is the 7th bullet from the top, and that shows the list of platforms to
install from.  How is that hard to find?

> We are building similar systems by principle and I am interested in
> your principles.

Your emails strongly suggest you do not understand those principles yet.

> I recommend descriptive URIs that will stand the time. Numeric not
> descriptive URIs are harder to handle.

Those are entity IDs which I expect to never change.  You have not
understood the system.  Knowledge is not represented at a fundamental
(or atomic) level by words, as the words can be different in different
languages, times, or other context, but still refer to the same thing.
Words change while knowledge is the same.  Words and names are transient.
Even names of individual humans change.  This system intends to
transcent mere words.

Here are some links I hope can explain more, hopefully...?

http://www.onemodel.org/1/e-9223372036854641853.html

1) Theory: We have many systems (wikis, evernote, cyc, etc), but all are
crippled by relying on human language as a fundamental layer. To more
powerfully manage knowledge, we can approach it more like an object model
created on the fly by just using the system: what you know about a pen,
say, is best expressed as numbers, relationships, and code (mass, owner,
behavior ...); the human language words can change when the knowledge
doesn't.

http://www.onemodel.org/1/e-9223372036854563430.html

Supports multiple human languages without duplicating the underlying knowledge.
Models knowledge at an atomic level based on an object model created on the fly (or better ideas if found). Not based on human language, due to its limitations.


http://www.onemodel.org/1/e-9223372036854615444.html

> That is also one major problem. I am not sure but I have got a feeling
> that I cannot store anything into the system, just short notes. You
> have been mentioning short notes multiple times and that would not be
> useful for me, as my notes usually way longer. Principles you have
> devised or concepts are good for learning.

Those are not the notes, they are the names of atomic knowledge
entities.  Entities can have many attributes, including long notes, like
the TextAttributes.  
 
> Sure, I understand it now. And I do believe you have satisfaction and
> ordered set of notes. You focus on relation definitions and I focus on
> storing just any kind of objects and making it as much relational and
> indexable to enable augmentation of the knowledge.

I hope the above notes/links, if you think about them slowly, letting me
know what is unclear, can explain that.  If not then maybe I need to
clarify the above notes & links, better, or you could read and think
about them more, until we really help you understand what I mean by
knowledge at an atomic level and that words are a superstrate only, a
superficial representation, not the fundamental representation.


Think of what is in your mind about a pen.  You understand things about
it like mass, owner, history, etc.  Those are all numbers and links to
concepts whose names and verbal descriptions can change, but they are
the same concepts nonetheless.  So an entity represents each of those
concepts, like in OO programming, each object represents one instance of
a concept.  But the concept, while it may have a name (or in the future,
many names depending on language or concept), retains its identity.  

You for example: you could change your name.  We don't want that to cause
URL breakage, or to have to change your name in multiple places in the
system.  But you still have the same relationships to other people, the
same date of birth, you are still a child of God who knows you as an
individual.  Your name change would not cause your connections to
physical or electronic addresses to all change, or your ownership of
property, your friends' addresses etc.  Those are all relationships to
other entities.  But we don't want to create a new data model for
everything that you could every relate to, but rather it lets you create
these relationships to entities, and define the nature of those
entities, *during use of the system*, like you would use a word
processor to type words, but in this case the fundamental structures of
the knowledge you possess are being defined in the software as a
side-effect of your use of the system.

We could write custom software for every imaginable use case, and
humanity is in a way in the process of doing that.  Or we could create
one system that models arbitrary knowledge, without having to do data
analysis for everything.  These are things I had hoped you could
discover by reading and thinking about what I already wrote on the site,
in more detail, more carefully and thoughtfully.  I am not sure which of
us failed to convey or understand that based on content already at the
site.

So the system is called
OneModel, because with one data model, we represent arbitrary knowledge
which ultimately becomes numbers and relationships.  Names and words are
just to help the humans navigate the system in familiar, but
fundamentally transient, ways.

> > Do you work for the FSF?
> 
> No. My signature may change.

This is another example of what I am saying.  Words change, individual
identity does not. :)

So for you to understand my intent, you must first understand how I am
envisioning that arbitrary knowledge is not words, but numbers and
relationships!  Words again can change, but the fundamental knowledge
does not.  This is the key failure that I understand with respect to the
Semantic Web, cyc, and many other systems.  And it is why I would like
in the future to allow having multiple names of entities (that thing
which is now limited to 160 chars), without changing the fundamental
nature of the entity: its relationships, measurements, history, links to
everything else.

Does any of the above change your fundamental understanding of what I am
trying to do?  Do you see why URLs cannot have words in them, for
example?

--
Luke Call
1) I find this inspiring and helpful (video/audio/written, many languages, 2x/year)
   General Conference: messages from prophets like Noah, but current.
   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference
2) Pls consider: are info sources accurate and reliable?  How do we know that?
3) I got vaccinated and wore a mask, because I care about human lives. 
Happy to discuss, or: http://lukecall.net - Tech,many thots.(Updated 2021-04-03. Cmts/sugg welcome. https later.)



----- End forwarded message -----