W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Contexts? (again)

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:11:06 -0800
Message-ID: <3DDCF78A.8050105@robustai.net>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, tarod@SoftHome.net
Richard H. McCullough wrote:

> As the complexity increases, graphs are less and less useful, and 
> language is the only way to go.  A picture may be worth 1,000 words, 
> but it's not very useful if you have 10,000 words.

When we say graph, we just mean a set of arrows.  The arrows can be 
expressed in any language whatsoever.  To visualize knowledge in 
pictures, does not mean that we must always keep the knowledge in 
pictures.  But when the interrelationships of the things becomes very 
complex, humans  (well some humans) seem to understand the situations 
better if they can use the right part of their brains to visualize it. 
 The point is that we can turn any picture into words and any string of 
words into a picture.  Mentography is the science and art of doing just 
that.  It is independant of any particular language.  Frequently 
something that would take many many words is instantly visable in the 

I agree to one thing - as the number of instances in question increases, 
we tend to want to use language strings because the pictures gets too 
big.  But the pictures and the language strings are interchangeagle - 
use the best one for the application at hand.

language: semenglish
    definition "Mentography is the graphical representation of mind."
    seeAlso <http://robustai.net/mentography/>.
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 10:11:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC