[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Unambiguous context information

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:29:02 -0700
Message-id: <4294A7CE.4090108@xxxxxxxxx>
Nicholas:    (01)

Many thanks for taking the time to parse my initial thoughts.  The paper 
only touches the surface of where this thinking may go.  I will read the 
Dolce next to understand more.  Here are some additional thoughts to ponder:    (02)

Where does one draw the line between something being a universal truth 
and a perception/assertion?  If I smash two rocks together, it makes a 
sound.  Sure - on earth if there is a gaseous environment to transmit 
the shock waves.  What if it happens very slowly by two rocks being 
forced together as part of continental shift?  It still makes a sound, 
yet it would likely be imperceivable to humans due to the long distance 
between frequency peaks.    (03)

A rock is matter.  In the context of human perception, it appears solid, 
yet it is not.  If we examined it under close enough scrutiny, it is a 
matrix of related bits of energy.     (04)

<quote who="me">
Are humans' axioms of 'universal truths' tainted by our own arrogance in 
assuming our perceptions are ubiquitous?
</quote>    (05)

A rock has mass.  How can you measure the mass.  In the context of 
static terrestrial existence, it is easy to assign a value based on 
relating the gravitational pull to some scale.  In space, the measure of 
mass is completely relative to the velocity contrast to the perceiver.    (06)

There are a number of contextual variables that seem to have the ability 
to contort truth tables.    (07)

Terrestrial proximity (how close is the thing to a terrestrial body)
Existential State (example: solid, gaseous, liquid)
Granularity of perception precision (to a human in an airplane, the 
lines in the desserts are pictures, to an ant climbing them, they are 
simply mounds of dirt)
Number of planes of perception (3d, 4d, *)
Energy (humans perceive such a small band of the overall spectrum.  even 
something like magnetic energy can twist apparent "truths")    (08)

There are probably many more human being related contexts too.    (09)

I am definitely going to read the Dolce work you referenced. Sounds very 
interesting.    (010)

Duane    (011)

Internet Business Logic wrote:    (012)

> Nicholas --
> You wrote:
> /If you really want unambiguous context information, it ought be 
> spelled out in a way that is sufficiently formal and sound to make 
> reasoning valuable and useful. /
> I'd suggest that a _representation shift_ can help with this. 
> As you may know, we have been suggesting that reasoning directly with 
> open vocabulary English can help to solve these kinds of problems.  
> Why describe the problem and its solution in English, then try to 
> solve it in a non-English notation?  That's the source of most of the 
> problems.
> Although reasoning directly with open vocabulary English may sound 
> like blue sky, there is a system that does this, albeit with a subtle 
> trade off to avoid dictionary construction yet get precise English 
> semantics.  (The underlying logical semantics is model-theoretic.)
> The system is live, online, with a number of Ontology and other 
> examples, at the site below.  The author- and user interface is simply 
> a browser. The approach is described in the e-Government 
> presentation.  There's also a recent paper at 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19 .
> Thanks in advance for comments.
>                                                      -- Adrian
> -- 
>Internet Business Logic  --  online at www.reengineeringllc.com
>Reengineering LLC,  PO Box 1412,  Bristol,  CT 06011-1412,  USA
>Phone 860 583 9677     Mobile 860 830 2085     Fax 860 314 1029
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (013)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>