Expanding the hyper relations to the world :
to make it simple : a chair. It looks like an isolated object, but if you scratch the surface, it is made of wood, the wood has been manufactured, transported, extracted, planted… The chair isn’t an isolated object anymore, it a part of a system, it has a meaning within its context but stands-alone equaly well.
A knowledge object shares similar tracability and operative capacities. Internet technology facilitates greatly this tracability with meta informations, and internet users usualy don’t "scratch the surface" ; they access the object by the meta tags surrounding the knowledge object.

==The Old Pandora’s Onion==
We can simplify and map out the onion skins in and around the knowledge object:
{ { { { { { { data } content } meta-data } file } semantic context } www } knowledge }
I call this pandora’s onion because we don’t know at which stage the information is better transmitted : at the data level, or the semantic level, or the contextual level, or…?
However, meta-data is descriptive level of the object, it does not inform about the meaning but connects the content meaning to the semantic context.

Internal semantic mecanism
One wonders what is the charateristic of the knowledge object, Karin Knorr Cetina proposes : "Knowledge objects are different than everyday things and are defined as unfolding structures that are non-identical with themselves." So if a knowledge object A exists and a similar knowledge object B is produced, they fold on each other : the quantity of semantical meaning does not add, it is considered as one. But that’s in the pure semantic world : in the hyperworld, all object have meta data attached, which link to them to their semantical context, a network of objects.
Mechanically an knowledge object can be related to the concept of "concept". A concept is usualy an association of "small" knowledge objects, classified by similarities and differences. We ignore what is the smallest constitutive component of a concept, all we know is that it is somehow "linked" and assembled into bigger, more complex concepts. Once classification has happened all sorts of operations can happen.

==The new semantic network of old Pandora’s onions and its operations==
Say, we associate knowledge object A, and knowledge object B :
koA_koB -> koAB : association, collage
koA_koB -> koC : fusion, creation of a new object
koA_koB -> koABC : transfert and byproduct
koA_koB -> koA’B’ : transformation of both A and B, denaturation
There are many more operations we could do, but this is enough to continue.
We can now propose networks of knowledge objects, and even computational models : the fabrication of new knowledge objects by successive operations.
The meaning does not reside anymore in the singular knowledge object, but in the activated network of knowledges objects via meta informations, a semantic network.

==The usage of knowledge objects==
Ultimately AcademiXML attemps to describe singular knowledge objects as " unfolding structures that are non-identical with themselves", in order to facilitate the computation of new ideas by logic combinatory techniques.
In the case of Hiromi Ozaki, this association process is motivated by pleasure-seeking and navigation, hopping from a hyperlink to another, trying to describe this journey bit by bit, knowledge object after knowledge object, all connected.

==The signifiance and effect of knowledge object on human cognition==
I like to compare roman alphabet and chinese ideograms. Many will advocate roman characters (phonetic) are more advanced and modular than chinese characters that remain very direct illustrations of material concepts. Roman languages uses phonetic characters to describe an object, chinese character uses ideogram to describe an object : chinese might not know how to pronounce a word, they can understand the meaning by association of concepts in singular ideograms.
We can do a parallel by comparing the semantic charge of a roman word and of a letter and of a word : the word contains a concept (if not many), zooming out, using knowledge object theory to make bigger and bigger networked objects we increase the complexity of the semantic network and the potential for creating new concepts.
Describing a knowledge object as a network of concepts simplifies and encourages semantic network development, facilitate user associative intelligence and offer an immense combinatory potential.

Did you enjoy the explanation of knowledge object?
A – Who’s the crazy nerd who wrote that?
B- I like the idea. I dont understand, sounds cool.
C- I knew about knowledge object, I just read to check if the author know what he/she’s talking about.

Do you think knowledge object formatting could help you memorize and creating new ideas, new associations?
A – I don’t need it, I have my stickies and my fountain pen
B- I think it needs simplification
C- You forgot everything about cybernetics and learning systems, where does the system learn (not the reader)?

Do you like the yellow background colour?
A- I wish it was white or cream
B- I did not notice it, now you say I like it.
C- This dissertation should not be anywhere but cyberspace you renegade

Will you use Academixml to write and share your knowledge?
A- I got better things to do than playing teenager hacker video-games
B- Make a text editor that supports AcadmiXML and seamlessly help me publish it online, I’m up for it
C- I invented internet, get real.

Majority of A :
You are our declared enemy, and this is why I love you so much. Only death will separate us or if Arsenal looses against Tibet. You have a solid honnest education and I am very sorry to make you loose your time with this questionnaire. Have a break, maybe jump the last page and sleep, this paper got you really tired and challenged your scholastic authority.

Majority of B :
You could be a member of my family or a collegue, nice and friendly, well-meaning but slightly lazy and suspicious. You live in london zone 2 and you take the bus, you are not vegetarian but you try to reduce your carbon footprint on internet. You might use AcadmiXML as a happy user but will not report the bug, even if you got the software for free.

Majority of C :
You are a hacker. We are not extreme enough for you, you are disapointed, you think we should die soon. We took programing together at Uni but you were not there most of the time, you were in the CIA database adding fake beards on american officials. We really love you and want to work with you someday to fill or incompetencies but we might actually have no proof of your tangible existence but this ACDC T-shirt of 1979.