[sc34wg3] Re: SAM-issue term-scope-def (Nikita Ogievetsky)

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Sam Hunting:

> > Nikita Ogievetsky:
> >
> > But there is certainly some set of axioms that we use to make our
judgments.
> > This set of axioms could be called "Processing Model".
> > Interestingly enough it sounds that neither RM, nor SAM pretend to cover
it.
> > So may be there is a place for an independent "PM" model that should
> > answer questions like "what does <two lines are parallel> mean".
> > Actually at some point I offered a name "tom-tom" for it (theoretical
model
> > for topic maps)
> > also because construction of some tom-toms resemble graphs - a set of
> > connected drums.
> > I think Bernard's questions should be a good start.
> > TMPM4 was about it, but RM jumped on a lower level (or I am missing
> > something).
>
> Not sure I understand you here, Nikita. How was TMPM4 about answering
> questions like "what does <two lines are parallel> mean"? I always saw the
> "Processing" in "Processing Model" as answering the question of how markup
> constructs gave rise to the topic map graph.

Hmm... let me try to expand...
For example 5 Euclid's Postulates allowed mathematician to express
geometrical
problems in terms of Euclidian geometry objects (lines, points, etc,) and
then solve them.
Note that different sets of axioms (postulates) lead to different geometries
and hence to different solutions.
Accordingly you are building GoosWorks graphs on the top TMPM4 or RM axioms
that hopefully allows you to solve some TM problems.

--Nikita.