IEML questions #ieml #change11

So many questions on IEML? Why, what is it for?

The language target applications are ” collaborative semantic tagging (`balisage’) of any idea or concept available on the Web (blogs, images, software, documents, data in general) ” (source: http://www.ieml.org/spip.php?article152

I do not know the meaning of the “collaborative”. Is it the machine that does the tagging, or is it humans that do the tagging?
If it is the machine, to tag means to understand, do machines know what they say?
If it is the human, why this new language?

“.. collaborative semantic search, including comparison, merging and navigation … ”

Again, this collaborative-word, Is IEML a way to Artificial Intelligence? Is IEML a kind of Esperanto for machines or for humans?

You write ” EML is more for the categorization of digital data than for direct expression ” (Facebook) How could a language make categorization easy? Is categorization a kind of abstract thinking, finding meaning?
The categories are not given to data in a automated way, categorization is a way to add meaning to data. How could a computer do that?

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “IEML questions #ieml #change11

  1. I must admit I am at a total loss. I do not understand why IEML is being developed.

    Reminds me of a story of one of my professors on methodology:

    An man did gather data all his life. He made a large system of files with data.

    He never found a scientist who could scientifically explore his data and make discoveries.

  2. As an answer to why develop something, I can offer that by the process of trying to understand something new we might learn more about the old. The further along the theory road I go with MOOCs, the more I find myself returning to older ways of looking at things. History of city planning speaks to placing myself among a group of strangers to learn and develop a “neighborhood” of understanding. Systems studies allow me to at least see the bigger picture of where a new theory might emerge even if I don’t “get” the theory itself.

    IEML doesn’t seem to have any handles to grasp it by–or no application I can understand. It might be an abstraction that hasn’t found its proper context yet?

    If you go to the very bottom of this page http://www.tintoyrobot.com/robots.html there is a picture of a Baby Robot. Perhaps this little robot hasn’t a school to go to and is just waiting for a learning theory like this? Maybe if we had a working theory for how machines could teach themselves, the people who are so fond of machines as metaphors for humans could be happy? Could it be that machines are developmentally held back by their being modeled after humans?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s