User talk:Rhmccullough/Sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources used in the past, currently, or proposed for MKR (programming language)

Possibly relevant to notability[edit]

Clint Jeffery, Interesting Links, unicon.sourceforge.net site: "Interesting Links"

  • source for citation of mKE use as tool for creating knowledge bases Rhmccullough (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clint Jeffery's bio on the Unicon site, list of publications:[1]
The Interesting Links page is about Unicon projects, and mKE is written in Unicon. There are two references on that page to McCullough's work, with brief comments apparently by Jeffery: Under Interesting Links, there is "Dick McCullough's Knowledge Explorer is a tool for creating knowledge bases, written in Unicon."
And on that page is a section headed:
Icon-related Languages
We are interested in encouraging any and all languages that feature Icon-style generators and goal-directed evaluation.
[Converge and Wrap1 wikified to see if they show up here. Converge does, Wrapl does not.]
[The sourceforge site "Interesting" page doesn't show up on the Wayback Machine until 12 Aug 2003, and it has, in that first version, the first reference, to Knowledge Explorer. The second reference wasn't there yet as of 25 Sept 2006, the last archived page on the WM, though Converge and Wrapl were there by then. McCullough notified user Abd that Jeffrey had recently added the link to mKR, and this is roughly confirmed by the WM. Closer to the present, the sourceforge material is mirrored at [4], and there is a later version for that, 19 May, 2007, so the link was added after then. [5] This is not old stuff for Jeffery.]
2006 consistent w/ McCullough "recent" -- I didn't look at website for a couple of years. Rhmccullough (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mKR, and this is roughly confirmed by the WM. Closer to the present, the sourceforge material is mirrored at [6], and there is a later version for that, 19 May, 2007, so the link was added after then. [7] This is not old stuff for Jeffery.]

I think it was added very recently. I think it wasn't there a few days ago. But I have a memory like a steel trapsieve, so that's why I'm relying on the Wayback Machine to show that it wasn't there in 2007, a year ago. What this shows is that Jeffery still considers mKR sufficently notable to include in his resource list and brief description.

http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/inl/inl52/inl52.htm#anchor1368066 This is a newsletter edited by Ralph Griswold, developer of ICON, the language mKE was first written in. The article is a description of the program written by McCullough. Contrary to what has been said about it, the article is not a "Letter to the Editor." That print newsletter printed other letters, different format. It was an article, but introduced with: "Editors' Note: Dick McCullough has written an Icon tool for organizing knowledge. His description follows." So the editor chose to use McCullough's description as an article, fairly simple.


  • Current McCullough contribution & pending mKR contribution to Raptor.
McCullough built Raptor on Windows Vista & shared result with all users. ref: Redland developers email group, Jun/30/2008
McCullough is adding mKR parser and serializer for all Raptor users. ref: Redland developers email group, Jul/03/2008
Rhmccullough (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not provide links to specific messages, so this isn't very useful. Further, if these are your posts, put them below. They cannot be used to establish notability, which is what the notability section here is about. They might be used for other purposes, under some conditions. If these are not your posts, who are the authors? Why should we think that they show notability; if a fan writes something glowing about your program, but we don't know who that is, or why it would be anything more than an isolated individual, it's pretty useless for sourcing. It hasn't been vetted in any way. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list stuff[edit]

McCullough below explains some mailing list history. It is not impossible that mailing list sources can be used for some things, and they can point to possible additional sources. Readers should understand that this is an area where usage becomes highly controversial. It's done, sometimes. Whether or not it would survive serious attention and appeal to ArbComm, possibly, is another story. So I'm not completely discounting this, and, when we start to come back and clean up and put what belongs in the article, we will revisit this matter of mailing list sources. What if, to posit a hypothetical case that *might* become a real case, a recognized expert has posted to a mailing list with an opinion that could show notability for mKR? Can we use that? The quick answer is, no, we couldn't, and the argument commonly made is that "How do we know that the expert actually wrote that?" However, we could verify this, quite possibly. What if the expert put, on a web page he or she controls, a copy of the mail, on request, acknowledging authorship? This would become something verifiable to any user. There is no requirement that sources not be created as needed, on request, provided that they are as reliable as they would have been without the request. This has, to my knowledge, not been tested, and, as I said, I have no idea how it would stand if challenged. Some would immediately say, "No way," I'm pretty sure about that. But I have a fairly good track record for predictions of how Wikipedia process will go, and that is often *not* how I'd want it to go. I pick my battles, and I don't waste a lot of time on losing causes unless there is value in the actual debate. I'd make my decision at the time. For now, Mr. McCullough should collect URLs for the mails he mentions, otherwise his comment here will be less useful.--Abd (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding a quick prefix here to emphasize important points. I think I am responsible for getting genus-differentia definition added to OWL. The one slightly negative aspect that I recall is: I refused to recommend a specific OWL syntax for definition. I felt that I shouldn't because I wasn't that familiar with OWL syntax. At the same time, I had a sense that I dropped the ball by only stating a theoretical position, and not supplying a good concrete syntax to go with my theory.Rhmccullough (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email discussion of OWL definition vs. mKR definition could support notability for McCullough. I found email between McCullough & Hendler (sp?). I vaguely recall that he's a professor who was working on OWL standard & soliciting comments. McCullough raised questions about OWL definitions. Henler suggested tha McCullough take issues back to OWL email group to get some discussion going. This may not be "THE" email for evidence, but I think += a few emails would find the best citations. I have a copy of email I can store in some convenient place. I also forwarded a copy to Abd. To go along with definition discussion, I think my mKR description of an OWL definition is really neat. See definitions & context examples in User:Rhmccullough/Sandbox/Examples. Rhmccullough (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started to say that OWL definition had error, and in one sense it does. The property restriction is not quite right. But the onProperty Restriction does appropriately distinguish between genus and differentia. I'm sure that's confusing, but it doesn't seem worth pursuing at this point. It's a relatively minor error, compared to other more serious problems with OWL ontology. Rhmccullough (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful in article or for background[edit]

1996, Anna Wierzbicka, Semantics: Primes and Universals, Oxford University Press.

  • source for element of Definition: English — natural words and phrases

1990, Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded Second Edition, Meridian.

  • source for element of Definition: epistemology — definitions and contex

1995, Morris I. Bolsky and David Korn, The New KornShell Command and Programming Language, Prentice Hall PTR.

  • source for element of Definition: UNIX shell — variables and procedures


Richard H. McCullough, Unicon Testimonials, http://unicon.sourceforge.net/testimon.html

  • source for implementation of mKE using Unicon language Rhmccullough (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1997, Richard H. McCullough, Knowledge Explorer, The Icon Newsletter, No. 52, page 6.

2007, Richard H. McCullough, Family History, http://mkrmke.org/knowledge/rhm/applications/Genealogy/greadme.html

  • source for citation of mKE and mKR use to manage Genealogy knowledge base, and generate standard GEDCOM output file Rhmccullough (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2003, Richard H. McCullough, GetLetter, http://mkrmke.org/bin/GetLetter

  • source for citation of mKE and mKR use to download Letter to Editor from local paper, and send text message to author's cell phone Rhmccullough (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1999, Richard H. McCullough, Expense Records, http://mkrmke.org/knowledge/rhm/applications/ExpenseRecord/xreadme.html

  • source for citation of mKE and mKR use to manage expense knowledge base, and generate summary reports Rhmccullough (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005, Richard H. McCullough, Create and Simplify an Ontology Lattice, http://mkrmke.org/doc/simplifylattice.html

  • source for definition of mKR built-in command to simplify lattice by removing redundant links Rhmccullough (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rhmccullough/Sources&oldid=222733643"