Re: CG: CMs and CGs
Alexander,
That's not a bad question:
> This may seem like a newby question but what is the difference
> beetween a concpetual map and a conceptual graph?
A conceptual graph is a version of logic with a graphical
representation. CGs were originally designed as a formal
notation for representing the semantics of natural languages
in a way that could be translated to logic and various computable forms.
Conceptual maps were originally designed as informal notations
by Novak and Gowin, two educators who developed the notation as
an easily learned method of showing relationships. They showed
that Cmaps could be learned and used effectively by children as
young as first grade.
For a history of semantic networks (which include a wide variety
of graphical notations for logic that have been used in AI), see
the paper I wrote for the _Encyclopedia of AI_:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/semnet.htm
In the talk I presented last month, I presented Cmaps at one
end of a continuum with formal notations, such as CGs and other
versions of logic, at the other.
One point I was trying to make is that natural languages span
the full range. They can be as vague as necessary to express
a half-formed idea or suggestion, and they can express the
final result with as much precision as any version of logic.
For that discussion, see
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cmapping.htm
Trying to bridge the gap between the original vague idea and
the final precise specification is not easy. So far, natural
languages are the only notations that can cover both ends.
There is still a lot of work to be done to design good notations
and good methodologies to support them. But it's important to
recognize that vagueness is not always bad, and precision is not
always good. As Lord Kelvin observed, "Better a rough answer
to the right question, than an exact answer to the wrong
question."
Somehow, we need to support both ends and the process of getting
from one to the other.
John Sowa