one answer to the whole gibber-jabber on semantic and ontologies (thanks chris). next time i will try to be more relaxed when i have to listen again.

pangaro left a note at my hut ... ;)

... even vannevar bush's 'memex' was smarter than our HTML browsers, because he wanted to engage the human in a conversation about contrasts ...

... responding to sem(antic)fatal

according to vannever bush foaf, "friend of a friend" would be named toat "trail of a trail"; and if so there would be a profession named "trail blazers",

those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record. The inheritance from the master becomes, not only his additions to the world's record, but for his disciples the entire scaffolding by which they were erected. (as we may think, cap.8)

reading this text several times now still something else catches my eye.

In the outside world, all forms of intelligence whether of sound or sight, have been reduced to the form of varying currents in an electric circuit in order that they may be transmitted. Inside the human frame exactly the same sort of process occurs. Must we always transform to mechanical movements in order to proceed from one electrical phenomenon to another? It is a suggestive thought, but it hardly warrants prediction without losing touch with reality and immediateness.

Expansiveness and specificity are central to achieving generality. They are necessary but not suffcient features of the context-aware computing paradigm that consider the way in which the operational environment relates to an agent’s notion of context, i.e., the distinction between potentiality and relevance. They fail to consider the manner in which the agent forms and manipulates its own notion of context. The only way an agent can exercise control over its context is to have an explicit notion of context. This gives the agent the power to define its own context and to change the definition as it sees fit. (a formal treatment of context-awareness)