Talk:Knowledge space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This smells like original research to me. Can some scholarly references be given? Michael Hardy 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the current article is based very heavily on it, but I think an appropriate reference would be

• Doignon, J. P. & Falmagne, J.-Cl. (1998), Knowledge Spaces, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-3540645016 

It describes a combinatorial framework for describing possible states of knowledge, closely related to antimatroids. —David Eppstein 05:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As the article has expanded, it's looking more and more like a neologistic view of power sets. The knowledge spaces described by Doignon are more general, more useful, have historic priority for the term, and (most importantly for Wikipedia) are more reliably sourced. But I'm hesitant to just rip out the entire article and replace it by one on the topic I'd prefer to see covered, and anyway I don't have time or access to my copy of the book in the next two weeks to deal with it. Suggestions for how to proceed? —David Eppstein 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Lévy

As it stands, the page is pretty bad. But unfortunately this is apparently a legitimate term, used by Pierre Lévy in Collective Intelligence[1], so deleting is inappropriate. Left a note on that article in the hope of attracting the attention of someone with a bit of knowledge. Banno 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a better reference? Banno 21:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TechXplore link

A bit of a hunt around, followed by a google search[2], failed to show any mention of this term on that site.

I'm deleting to a stub of Lévy's work. If any one want to place this article up for deletion, I will not oppose. Banno 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a strong argument that the Lévy work should take precedence over the Falmagne-Doignon one? I have an argument in the other direction: Falmagne and Doignon used the "knowledge space" phrase as the title of their book while it sounds like it is merely mentioned in the Lévy one. Or perhaps both should be included. —David Eppstein 22:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. My Guess is that Lévy's work will prove to be better-known, but I have no objection to including the pedagogic use as well. Perhaps what we will end up with is a simple disambiguation page. Can you provide links or references? Banno 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference: Doignon, J.-P. & Falmagne, J.-Cl. (1999), Knowledge Spaces, Springer-Verlag . More generally, here's a bibliography of more than 300 papers on knowledge spaces (in the same sense as the Doignon-Falmagne book) many of which use that phrase in the title (the earliest ones that do so including Falmagne, Koppen, Villano, Doignon, and Johannesen 1990; Falmagne 1989a,b; Koppen 1989; Koppen and Doignon 1990; Villano 1992; Villano and Bloom 1992; etc). —David Eppstein 22:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Why the @*&%$ does this show in category:philosophy? Banno 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)