Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet"
Hi folks. Just "tuppencely" and hopefully not off topic I note that Wikipedia seems to prefer capitalizing "the Internet" and the noun alone in terms like !"Internet protocols". Somehow I have a feeling the lower case forms will win out in the end, though, as seems often to happen with things like brand names. Very interesting discussion! Best wishes, Will William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
First Monday will not allow anything but the cap I species. (factoid) I have gone back in the archives for discussions on the definition of the Internet. This is a rich source of information. I would recommend it to anyone. There are two school of thought exposed. 1. the Internet is rigidly defined as "Network of networks bound by the TCP/IP protocols 2. the above but including all socio/psychological/humanities based activities that are conducted using the above. i.e. a generic application I assert, both represent ontological commitments and the resulting sanctioned inferences. Form 1 - represents the cap "I" argument and Form 2 represents the lower case. This elaboration has importance because it frames, in a generative way, the nature of scholarship that is considered to be Internet Research and therefor sanctioned. In form 1, research is confined to technological domains. If form 2 qualitative approaches are given greater lattitude and sactions appear be less restrictive. Combining two threads Wired could be folkloric knowledge and therefor not within scholarly sanctions or domains; as opposes to knowledge derived from elite sources. The same is true of Wikipedia vs Britannica, blogs etc. Jeremy asserts that there are many definitions of the "Internet" and I would agree. Each of those definitions form a ontological commitment and each has its scope of acceptable inferences (sanctioned) The archives clearly exposes these boundary disputes. Referencing yet a third thread, these boundary disputes are a manifestation of "naturally occuring conflicts." One could argue that the conflicts represent the application of sanctions derived from an ontology. In my opinion you were not off topic. James William Bain <willronb@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi folks. Just "tuppencely" and hopefully not off topic I note that Wikipedia seems to prefer capitalizing "the Internet" and the noun alone in terms like !"Internet protocols". Somehow I have a feeling the lower case forms will win out in the end, though, as seems often to happen with things like brand names. Very interesting discussion! Best wishes, Will William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
I don't think there are any ontological commitments per se, if you want to construct them, that is fine, but i see diverse usages in technical and non-technical spheres, and I do not see any basis for the claim that there is any frame present for usage beyond fashion or common use. Specifically, other than style guidelines in some domains and presses, I don't think there is any basis to the position you are taking below, but if you can marshal evidence that outside of style-guide determined systems, there is a technical/non-technical split, I would love to see it. I participate in both and I see people migrating back and forth without issue. On Mar 31, 2007, at 3:55 PM, James Whyte wrote:
First Monday will not allow anything but the cap I species. (factoid)
I have gone back in the archives for discussions on the definition of the Internet. This is a rich source of information. I would recommend it to anyone.
There are two school of thought exposed. 1. the Internet is rigidly defined as "Network of networks bound by the TCP/IP protocols 2. the above but including all socio/psychological/humanities based activities that are conducted using the above. i.e. a generic application
I assert, both represent ontological commitments and the resulting sanctioned inferences. Form 1 - represents the cap "I" argument and Form 2 represents the lower case.
This elaboration has importance because it frames, in a generative way, the nature of scholarship that is considered to be Internet Research and therefor sanctioned.
In form 1, research is confined to technological domains. If form 2 qualitative approaches are given greater lattitude and sactions appear be less restrictive.
Combining two threads Wired could be folkloric knowledge and therefor not within scholarly sanctions or domains; as opposes to knowledge derived from elite sources. The same is true of Wikipedia vs Britannica, blogs etc.
Jeremy asserts that there are many definitions of the "Internet" and I would agree. Each of those definitions form a ontological commitment and each has its scope of acceptable inferences (sanctioned)
The archives clearly exposes these boundary disputes. Referencing yet a third thread, these boundary disputes are a manifestation of "naturally occuring conflicts." One could argue that the conflicts represent the application of sanctions derived from an ontology.
In my opinion you were not off topic.
James
William Bain <willronb@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi folks. Just "tuppencely" and hopefully not off topic I note that Wikipedia seems to prefer capitalizing "the Internet" and the noun alone in terms like !"Internet protocols". Somehow I have a feeling the lower case forms will win out in the end, though, as seems often to happen with things like brand names. Very interesting discussion!
Best wishes,
Will
William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
--------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
It would be helpful if you actually make a point. Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: I don't think there are any ontological commitments per se, if you want to construct them, that is fine, but i see diverse usages in technical and non-technical spheres, and I do not see any basis for the claim that there is any frame present for usage beyond fashion or common use. Specifically, other than style guidelines in some domains and presses, I don't think there is any basis to the position you are taking below, but if you can marshal evidence that outside of style-guide determined systems, there is a technical/non-technical split, I would love to see it. I participate in both and I see people migrating back and forth without issue. On Mar 31, 2007, at 3:55 PM, James Whyte wrote:
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
the point was merely that your assertion is at best contrived and seems to have no evidence other than your assertion. we know why various parties choose things currently, house style, fashion of the day... none of those reasons are ontological commitments. those reasons are conventional commitments. the two might overlap, here, they do not. unless you can provide evidence that technological meaning, operating outside of the realm of convention, fashion, or style, exists, then all that I see that you are saying is that, you assert fiction x, and it explains the situation. so if we can find that fiction x is not a fiction, we are fine, else, I wonder why you are trying to make the argument. but hey, that's just me. you might appreciate different standards of evidence. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:24 PM, James Whyte wrote:
It would be helpful if you actually make a point.
Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: I don't think there are any ontological commitments per se, if you want to construct them, that is fine, but i see diverse usages in technical and non-technical spheres, and I do not see any basis for the claim that there is any frame present for usage beyond fashion or common use. Specifically, other than style guidelines in some domains and presses, I don't think there is any basis to the position you are taking below, but if you can marshal evidence that outside of style-guide determined systems, there is a technical/non-technical split, I would love to see it. I participate in both and I see people migrating back and forth without issue. On Mar 31, 2007, at 3:55 PM, James Whyte wrote:
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
Very weak! Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: the point was merely that your assertion is at best contrived and seems to have no evidence other than your assertion. we know why various parties choose things currently, house style, fashion of the day... none of those reasons are ontological commitments. those reasons are conventional commitments. the two might overlap, here, they do not. unless you can provide evidence that technological meaning, operating outside of the realm of convention, fashion, or style, exists, then all that I see that you are saying is that, you assert fiction x, and it explains the situation. so if we can find that fiction x is not a fiction, we are fine, else, I wonder why you are trying to make the argument. but hey, that's just me. you might appreciate different standards of evidence. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:24 PM, James Whyte wrote:
It would be helpful if you actually make a point.
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote: I don't think there are any ontological commitments per se, if you want to construct them, that is fine, but i see diverse usages in technical and non-technical spheres, and I do not see any basis for the claim that there is any frame present for usage beyond fashion or common use. Specifically, other than style guidelines in some domains and presses, I don't think there is any basis to the position you are taking below, but if you can marshal evidence that outside of style-guide determined systems, there is a technical/non-technical split, I would love to see it. I participate in both and I see people migrating back and forth without issue. On Mar 31, 2007, at 3:55 PM, James Whyte wrote:
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Very weak! Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: the point was merely that your assertion is at best contrived and seems to have no evidence other than your assertion. we know why various parties choose things currently, house style, fashion of the day... none of those reasons are ontological commitments. those reasons are conventional commitments. the two might overlap, here, they do not. unless you can provide evidence that technological meaning, operating outside of the realm of convention, fashion, or style, exists, then all that I see that you are saying is that, you assert fiction x, and it explains the situation. so if we can find that fiction x is not a fiction, we are fine, else, I wonder why you are trying to make the argument. but hey, that's just me. you might appreciate different standards of evidence. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:24 PM, James Whyte wrote:
It would be helpful if you actually make a point.
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote: I don't think there are any ontological commitments per se, if you want to construct them, that is fine, but i see diverse usages in technical and non-technical spheres, and I do not see any basis for the claim that there is any frame present for usage beyond fashion or common use. Specifically, other than style guidelines in some domains and presses, I don't think there is any basis to the position you are taking below, but if you can marshal evidence that outside of style-guide determined systems, there is a technical/non-technical split, I would love to see it. I participate in both and I see people migrating back and forth without issue. On Mar 31, 2007, at 3:55 PM, James Whyte wrote:
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
all I'm requesting is that you provide some evidence that the ontological commitments that you assert exist and are not commitments based on convention, possibly as style or fashion. either you can, or you can't. if you can't, then your assertions are merely your own, perfectly fine for what they are, but not really capable of sustaining a broader position. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:56 PM, James Whyte wrote:
Very weak!
In my opinion, conventions, fashion or styles are ontological commitments and carry with them sanctioned inferences. Just as social norms are products of committed reasoning. The premise, as originally stated, is that if you define the Internet narrowly (my form 1) social domains are not considered. The second form, less narrow, opens consideration to more options. Form 1 is a pronoun; form 2 is a common noun. I don't stand alone in this view. It is suggested in Davis, Shrobe and Szolovits AI Magazine, 14(1):17-33 as inference and is also supported by Sapir, Wharf and others in linguistics. I can provide a larger bibliography if your intent is not pugnacious. On the other hand Google Scholar produces thousands of parallel offerings. The richest sources come from discourse on Knowledge Representation (KR). To get there one has to take a trans-disciplinary view ; which allows one to easily move across the boundaries. Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: all I'm requesting is that you provide some evidence that the ontological commitments that you assert exist and are not commitments based on convention, possibly as style or fashion. either you can, or you can't. if you can't, then your assertions are merely your own, perfectly fine for what they are, but not really capable of sustaining a broader position. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:56 PM, James Whyte wrote:
Very weak!
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
That seems wrong, or inverted, from the first sentence: Ontological commitments may be opinionated, conventionalized, fashionable, or stylized. But opinion, convention, fashion, and style could as easily be epistegmological, theoretical, methodological, or practical as ontological. -eg
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l- bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of James Whyte Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 7:33 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet"
In my opinion, conventions, fashion or styles are ontological commitments and carry with them sanctioned inferences. Just as social norms are products of committed reasoning. The premise, as originally stated, is that if you define the Internet narrowly (my form 1) social domains are not considered. The second form, less narrow, opens consideration to more options. Form 1 is a pronoun; form 2 is a common noun. I don't stand alone in this view. It is suggested in Davis, Shrobe and Szolovits AI Magazine, 14(1):17-33 as inference and is also supported by Sapir, Wharf and others in linguistics. I can provide a larger bibliography if your intent is not pugnacious. On the other hand Google Scholar produces thousands of parallel offerings. The richest sources come from discourse on Knowledge Representation (KR).
To get there one has to take a trans-disciplinary view ; which allows one to easily move across the boundaries.
Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: all I'm requesting is that you provide some evidence that the ontological commitments that you assert exist and are not commitments based on convention, possibly as style or fashion. either you can, or you can't. if you can't, then your assertions are merely your own, perfectly fine for what they are, but not really capable of sustaining a broader position. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:56 PM, James Whyte wrote:
Very weak!
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I am speaking to biases created by definitional boundaries. I might add that it parallels your admonition for others to define their terms in a recent posting. If I might paraphrase: "Natural", "occuring" and "conflicts" impose different inferences (sanctioned) depending on the definitions used. James Ellis Godard <egodard@csun.edu> wrote: That seems wrong, or inverted, from the first sentence: Ontological commitments may be opinionated, conventionalized, fashionable, or stylized. But opinion, convention, fashion, and style could as easily be epistegmological, theoretical, methodological, or practical as ontological. -eg
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l- bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of James Whyte Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 7:33 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet"
In my opinion, conventions, fashion or styles are ontological commitments and carry with them sanctioned inferences. Just as social norms are products of committed reasoning. The premise, as originally stated, is that if you define the Internet narrowly (my form 1) social domains are not considered. The second form, less narrow, opens consideration to more options. Form 1 is a pronoun; form 2 is a common noun. I don't stand alone in this view. It is suggested in Davis, Shrobe and Szolovits AI Magazine, 14(1):17-33 as inference and is also supported by Sapir, Wharf and others in linguistics. I can provide a larger bibliography if your intent is not pugnacious. On the other hand Google Scholar produces thousands of parallel offerings. The richest sources come from discourse on Knowledge Representation (KR).
To get there one has to take a trans-disciplinary view ; which allows one to easily move across the boundaries.
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote: all I'm requesting is that you provide some evidence that the ontological commitments that you assert exist and are not commitments based on convention, possibly as style or fashion. either you can, or you can't. if you can't, then your assertions are merely your own, perfectly fine for what they are, but not really capable of sustaining a broader position. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:56 PM, James Whyte wrote:
Very weak!
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
Opinions, conventions, fashions, and styles of terminological meaning might well be ontological. But opinion, convention, fashion, and style regarding tie width or shirt collar design concerns a lower level of abstraction than ontology. Also, I question whether definitional boundaries create, rather than reflect, biases and whether biases (whatever that means in this context) are negative, wrong, etc. -eg --------------------- From: James Whyte [mailto:whyte.james@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 3:30 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; ellis.godard@csun.edu Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" I am speaking to biases created by definitional boundaries. I might add that it parallels your admonition for others to define their terms in a recent posting. If I might paraphrase: "Natural", "occuring" and "conflicts" impose different inferences (sanctioned) depending on the definitions used. James
Jeremy, I occurs to me that I have not provided the ontology to which I am committed. While one example may be considered anecdotal, I think this one serves as an exemplar for the line of reasoning. It is taken from the field of artificial intelligence which as borrowed it from more philosophical origins. "An ontology defines the terminology of a domain of knowledge: the concepts that constitute the domain, and the relationships between those concepts. In order for two or more knowledge-based systems to interoperatefor example, by exchanging knowledge, or collaborating as agents in a co-operative problem-solving processthey must commit to the definitions in a common ontology." Waterson, A., Preeces, A. (1999) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V0P-3WHCH7K-6&_us... I hope this helps! James --------------------------------- Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
From: James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com>
It would be helpful if you actually make a point.
How is the weather out there in Colorado? Is your cave warm enough, and sufficiently isolated from sunlight? We wouldn't want you to turn to stone, or anything... --e
participants (5)
-
Ellis Godard -
elw＠stderr.org -
James Whyte -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
William Bain