Being, at present, a student of an online distance learning program – such that I might wish to refer to as it serving as a manner of an Enterprise MOOC, colloquially – in considering the nature of the online school program, itself, and in considering the technical and scientific content of the courses I’m studying under, I have developed an impression that I may be addressing some challenges, academically, such that I might not expect may occur to a student of any more conventional manner of academic study. Not as though to develop any manner of an agenda of complaining about the challenges that I believe I am facing, academically – those, beside any challenges that I may be facing, personally, vocationally, and socially, in my own personal life – I have, instead, been trying to extend of my studies as developed singularly in relation to the content of the individual school courses.
Of course, I have not been very conversant about my academic studies, in any discourses – not online or otherwise socially. If I have made any agenda of my studentship, perhaps it has been only that I should wish to remain expressly taciturn to my own academic knowledge – considering that I must avoid placing either myself or any reader in any manner of a conflict of interest, with regards to any manner of heavily, legally regulated if not expressly, legally controlled practices in electronics and communications. This concern, in itself, might seem controversial – as in the veritable information free-for-all that may seem to have developed on the contemporary Internet, in recent years. Whether it may seem controversial or not, I believe it is a principled position I must keep, to remain expressly nonconversant about much of a broad range of my own formal knowledge – nonconvserant, as such, in any social, academic, or even immediately technical discussion. Thus, I understand that I must likewise accept it if I may seem, literally, “Dumb,” to any external estimate of my own knowledge.
Contrarily, I understand that I must also be cautious to not be overconfident of my own knowledge. I believe that this concern, in itself, might be shared of anyone to whom any sense of academic conceit might seem to occur as though “Too easily.” I do not believe as though it was any actual “Curse” of knowledge. I believe it is rather a natural sense of caution, such as perhaps may naturally attend with a sense of mature responsibility as with regards to information, knowledge, and experience, in an imperfect world. Although it may not be altogether towards a constructive manner of presentation, but – as in something of a critical sense of candor – perhaps it may be remarked of as expressly a manner of solipsism, narcissism, naivete, or simple vanity – the great “Conceit of intellect,” to which so many poets and playwrights have certainly commented, to-date. Not as though to oversimplify the essentially human nature of such a phenomenon, I believer it is a matter that is commented to, in some of Buddhist philosophy – as with regards to a sense of “Discriminating mind,” a concept in itself that might be presented in some Buddhist texts.
Personally, I believe that the very nature of the great “Conceit of intellect,” itself, that it is a reflection of intellect reflecting vainly on its own impressions – in a manner like the pond of Narcissus, that such conceit is a reflection of a vain manner of reflection. My being of an impression that much of a European literature has been colored of a sense of nihilism in existentialist perspective, I would certainly want to be cautious before if I may even inadvertently cause any manner of a ripple on either the reflecting pool or its reflection, as such.
I believe that a sense of conceit can be well mitigated with a manner of practical applications of knowledge – albeit in a manner of a simplistic thesis, that there may be a kind of an “Elbow grease” that may serve as a good antidote for a kind of “Overthinking”. However, as I believe I have been somewhat “In a bind” as with regards to my own course of study and the – as I have thought – the dubiously non-rigorous presentation of the material that I have been studying – studying as directly of the courses that I am a student of – thus, I’ve been feeling rather stymied of the additional study that I consider I must develop, as a student. To my impression, it seem to me as that there is a broad gap existing between what I have been taught of the course material, and what I must actually know before if I may find any manner of academically constructive result and any corresponding sense of a practical enjoyment, in simply applying my own knowledge with regards to the same academic material.
I believe that I cannot actually enjoy applying anyone else’s knowledge, if in any manner of a cookie-cutter fashion, in any tasks in which I believe I must study as to develop my own knowledge of the material.
Furthermore, as to retain a grain fo alt with regard to “My own knowledge,” I believe that I cannot simply assume I have completely understood the material, even in which I have endeavored to “Task” my knowledge in application to any single material assignment. When I believe I cannot either rely on the schools’ learning verification methods, to test whether I may actually comprehend the material at any depth, then – candidly – I may feel very much “Left in the dark,” as to whether I know the material or not, and if not, then how to proceed? but if so, then how to verify it, beyond the material assignments of any single batch of course work , in any single teaching model, in any single course of any singe academic institution?
If a person has ever accused me of “Overthinking” – and I have received such a criticsm, before – but candidly, I thought it was an odd criticism. I do not believe I know of any natural state of mind I may develop as in which I may think without “Overthinking,” as such.
Before I had written this broader overview of my perspective, this evening, I had wished to develop – instead – a simple thesis as with regards to bibliographical content, academic content development, and networked computing. In having begun such a broader overview, in the previous, I had thought that it might serve to shed a light about why I believe it is necessary to keep an active study about content in contemporary academia – that it is not as though to “Show off,” candidly, to “Show off” in my own reflecting pool or anyone else’s, either. I believe it is, rather, like an almost functional feature of my own perspective with regards to the limits of my own sense of academic knowledge – that beside the “Trial by elbow grease,” there is also the “Trial by reading more about it, ” as with regards to a singular sense of academic knowledge.
So, why would I think it would be useful to develop something of a hybrid application of a networked filesystem – such as GlusterFS – and something of an application on a desktop, and something else of an application on an Android tablet, if such an application may be applied as though only for purpose of studying some contemporary academic content? What a boring thing it may be, to put so much of “Elbow grease” into what may comprise only a manner of a distributed personal bibliography system? and I would wish to think it would be simpler than it may actually turn out to be – for instance, as though it would be sufficient to apply JabRef on the desktop, Eratosthenes on an Android tablet, and to develop something of a “library check-out” application on top of the networked filesystem? as though it would all fit together as seamlessly as such a comment may seem to make it seem as though it would? There are those existing components, of which there are, and some “To do” components, of which there are not any existing components – would it be enough, then to just trust that the exiting components would be sufficient? and if they were not sufficient, would it represent any manner of a flaw in the design concept, itself?
Not included in that thesis, there’s the Zotero bibliography service, and the Mendeley bibliography service, as well as any singularly domain-oriented content publishing systems – such as … but the name escapes me, presently. Beyond the PDF media, there are also so many commercially distributed eBook platforms – including Kindle, Kobo, and Google Play Books – as well as some book subscription services, such as Safari Books Online – and then all of the web content as one may curate and annotate with Diigo and with Evernote. How, then, may one presume to develop any manner of a singular bibliography system, across so many heterogeous application services?
Personally, I would wish to begin such a design as by developing a manner of a graph model for bibliographical content – whether it would be a model developed in a KIF, OKBC, RDF, Common Logic, KDM, ODM, or other format for logical modeling in a context of first-order logic. For all of the diversity among so many kinds of logical model, however, of course the task does not become any more simplified – not in introducing even such a manner of superficially simple topic, Logical Models.
Perhaps it might seem to be just as well, to simply choose one of those exiting formats and – along with any single one – to select any set of corresponding software utilities, then to begin to develop with it, to an application?
Beginning with the ODM metamodels, it may be possible to define a manner of a unified logical model, if not also an application of the metamodels defined in the ODM specification. The ODM metamodels, in each, applies the Metobject Facility (MOF), developing a complete logical model to each or RDF Schema, OWL, ISO Common Logic, and ISO Topic Maps. The ODM specification furthermore defines a UML profile for each. KDM likewise applies MOF – thus, KDM and the ODM metamodels share a common type system and thus, a similar expression language. OKBC, so far as applied in FIPA, may be expressed in a KIF syntax. KIF, in itself – considering the concrete KIF implementation in PowerLoom KIF, and the OKBC KIF expression language developed in the FIPA specifiations – KIF shares a similarity with Common Logic, both in the syntax and the semantics of each as a manner of an expression language in a first-order logic. It may be possible to develop a metamodel for each of the FIPA OKBC KIF expression language and the PowerLoom KIF expression language, thus, in a manner as may be similar to the Common Logic metamodel developed under ODM.
First-Order MIS?
Perhaps, this may seem like a lot of an academic sidebar to any manner of a real-world commercial application of any single system of a first-order logic. Perhaps it may not serve to capture as many gold stars as might any manner of a novel application of commercial statistical data mining and analysis, i.e any kind of a “Big Data” system. Perhaps it may not seem much more interesting, to propose that any single manner of first-order logic may be applied in any single manner of a management information system (MIS) for Information Technology (IT) management services – if not in so much as to effectively automate any manner of expert analysis processes in IT forensics, but at least as to provide a manner of a logical IT model expressed in a first-order logic, such that could serve to provide a manner of structure in a context of presentation models and systems tooling, in any context of host-level applications of any manner of a singular MIS logical model.
Theoretically, a complete network services logging system may be developed as in a context of first order logic, such that may then be applied in an manner of a provenance model for analysis of network log data on event of exploit. Rather than any manner of an active “Network Sniffer” kind of architecture, instead a manner of a passive “Trace Logger” architecture may be developed – to any specific level of detail, in any single application in a manner of systems access logging – such as may effectively span individual log databases on any single network, so long as each respective log database may be represented within a homologous data interface, as viz a viz any individual, concrete syntax implementing a first-order logic.
First-Order Software Components
Juxtaposed to any necessarily broad-sweeping model as may be developed for a logical presentation of network service access logging, it may be a simpler if not less ambitious project: To develop an expression model in a first-order logic for providing a unified logical representation of a software component system – as in order to provide a logical model of any singular resources applied in any materials flow in a manner of software source code access, software configuration, and distribution of software ports and software packages, as well as of any single operating system kernel and baseline userspace utilities, for a purpose of software distribution management – such as may be developed as a project in developing a system of (1) a logical model, (2) a set of presentation tools, and (3) a set of application tools. The presentation tools, in such a logical modeling project, would naturally represent the most “User visible” features. The other three primary systems components should be no less rigorously defined, however, as for application in a broad number of usage cases – not as though to exclude the odd “Boundary condition,” moreover, in developing any manner of an application for any single manner of a “Mainstream condition.”
Of course, all of this could seem frivolous if juxtaposed to any manner of any singular, positive analysis of any single manner of a “Business as Usual,” in any single manner of technology industry. Maybe the world simply needs more bold cambered wings than novel bicycle chain grease systems – to strike a metaphor, momentarily, to the work of Orville and Wilbur Wright.
Hardpan Media 