Adam, (01)
Adam Pease wrote: (02)
> Patrick,
> I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not just a question
> of precision in the conventional sense. Of course we try to make our
> documents and laws precise. But the meaning of those texts is
> determined with recourse to human interpretation. In a formal
> ontology like SUMO, or DOLCE, one could replace all the term names
> with arbitrary unique symbols, and an automated deductive system,
> following the rules of mathematical logic (in our case, first order
> logic) could reach all the same conclusions as it could if those
> intelligible labels were present. The meaning of the symbols is
> defined mathematically, and no human interpretation is required to
> give them meaning. (03)
Yes, there is a misunderstanding here. (04)
defining a mathematical logic between arbitrary unique symbols !=
defining the meaning of arbitrary unique symbols (05)
Yes, whatever symbols are substituted, the outcomes of defined
operations would be the same. (06)
That is not the same as defining the "meaning" of a symbol mathematically. (07)
The "meaning" of a symbol is always determined with recourse to human
interpretation. How else would you explain the use of WordNet references
in SUMO? Of what possible relevance are WordNet entries if the meaning
of symbols is being defined mathematically? The answer is that the
"meaning" of the symbols is being defined by making references to
something outside of the mathematical definition of relationships
between the symbols. (08)
>
> That's relevant because it enables one to do things like prove the
> absence of contradictions in the use of these terms with an automated
> system. In contrast, without such a property, humans have to
> determine whether usage of terminological or linguistic based
> standards are compliant. Standards compliance is something I would
> think would be relevant to the world bank.
>
Not to put too fine a point on it but you seem to be eliding over the
fact that the development of SUMO was based upon human interpretation
and construction of the rules that can then be automatically applied. It
wasn't simply a matter of putting mathematical rules in a box of symbols
and shaking it until the result suddenly appeared. (09)
The compliance the world bank (or any other concern) is interested in is
compliance with their terms, which may or may not use the same rules for
complaince that can be found in SUMO. Yes, logic can prove a lack of
contradiction but then so can careful definition of terms and what is or
is not considered to be a conflict. (010)
Note that I do consider SUMO and similar efforts to be worthwhile. But,
I don't think that they divorce the meaning of symbols from human
interpretation nor are they the best solutions for all cases. As I noted
earlier today, we have been down the road of universal languages before
and none has succeeded to date. (011)
Hope you are having a great day! (012)
Patrick (013)
> Adam
>
> At 03:08 AM 4/8/2006, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> Adam Pease wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>> For what it's worth, I think there is a common problem surfacing
>>> here, that Bill has tried to point out. Language and ontology are
>>> different. Human language (and any given word in a human language)
>>> is ambiguous and highly contextual. Terms in an ontology are not
>>> ambiguous (or at least, shouldn't be if they are properly and
>>> formally defined).
>>> Typically, this has been a problem, because computational
>>> linguists have often used linguistic elements as pseudo-logical
>>> terms in semantic forms. Ontology builders often use linguistic
>>> elements as proxies for doing a full semantic definition, leaving
>>> much of the interpretation embedded in the conventional meaning of
>>> the linguistic-based term.
>>> The approach we've taken in SUMO is to make this distinction
>>> explicit, and to address language and ontology in separate but
>>> related products. SUMO is the formal ontology with terms defined
>>> unambiguously in first order logic. Those terms are related through
>>> semi-formal links to the word senses in Princeton's WordNet.
>>
>>
>> Language and ontology are different???
>>
>> Hmmm, well the foundational paper for SUMO states:
>>
>> "In order to enable continued progress in ecommerce and software
>> integration, we must give
>> computers a common language with a richness that more closely
>> approaches that of human
>> language." http://home.earthlink.net/~adampease/professional/FOIS.pdf
>>
>> Granted a great deal of effort has gone into making SUMO precise, but
>> the same could be done for any language. It is interesting but not
>> persuasive that its terms have been "defined unambigouously in first
>> order logic." And that is relevant for what reason? Perhaps first
>> order logic is not relevant to all the problems faced by the World
>> Bank. Recall that the current fascination with first order logic is a
>> repeat of a debate that has ebbed and flowed for many years. Justice
>> Holmes wrote in the 1890's that the life of the law had been
>> experience and not logic.
>> (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2373/2373-h/2373-h.htm)
>>
>> In any event, there is no reason to disenfranchise the World Bank
>> from representing their language/ontology in favor of using SUMO.
>> There have been any number of attempts to produce universal
>> languages, LogLang is one of the more recent ones.
>>
>> There are standards that seek to empower users to define their own
>> languages/ontologies and yet remain mappable to others. See, for
>> example the Topic Maps Reference Model CD draft at:
>> http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0710.pdf.
>>
>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Durusau
>> Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
>> Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
>> Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
>>
>> Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
>> mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Adam Pease
> http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools
>
>
>
>
> (014)
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 (015)
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (017)
|