Patrick,
I'm afraid you're reading new things into each new post, which is
proliferating the need for too many responses. In summary, and I'm
afraid, in closing for now, the point is just that in a mathematical
system such as a formal ontology, meaning is contained in the formal
mathematics. Lacking such a formal axiomatization, one has to rely
on a human interpretation, which makes for a weaker, and I would
venture, less useful model. How that mathematical model is then put
to use, and connected to the real world, is a separate issue which
I'm not attempting to address. (01)
Adam (02)
At 05:29 PM 4/9/2006, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>Adam,
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>Patrick,
>>
>>>Sigh, but you just conceded above that that meaning of the symbols
>>>is *not* defined by mathematics.
>>
>>
>>No, I don't think I said that. As Pat Cassidy pointed out, there
>>is a philosophical issue that is known in AI as the "symbol
>>grounding" problem, but the meaning of the terms in a formal
>>ontology is defined solely by the mathematics.
>OK, what you said that I took to mean that was:
>
>>It's true that even a formal ontology is created by humans, and
>>that the logic may not fully capture the intended meaning of the human.
>>It's also true that the results of any automated computation must
>>be interpreted somehow. The lack of sufficiency of a technique
>>under all possible uses is not an argument against its necessity
>>however. (Adam Pease, second post on 4/8/2006)
>
>Moreover, recall my mentioning SUMO making reference to WordNet? If
>a formal ontology is "defined solely by the mathematics" then aren't
>the WordNet references gratuitous?
>
>But those references aren't gratuitous are they? They are there in
>order to solve the "symbol grounding" problem. Yes? That is to say
>some human author wrote the formal ontology and *expressed* their
>definitions using mathematics or choose terms from a formal
>ontology. Either act "grounds" the symbols outside of the formal ontology.
>
>Recall that in your first post on 4/8 you said:
>
>>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.
>
>Human interpretation was involved in the formulation of the symbols
>and if using an ontology written by others, in choosing the symbols to be used.
>
>I agree that precisely defining "meanings" using mathematics is a
>very good thing. What I find objectionable is the notion that
>meanings defined mathematically are somehow grounded other than by
>the acts of their authors or those who choose to use them.
>
>As you note in the passage I just quoted, a formal system doesn't
>care whether the symbols are meaningful or not. It has no way to
>determine if they are grounded or not. It is simply following the
>instructions of those capable of grounding the symbols. Which is a
>very useful thing. I have no quarrel with representation of
>knowledge or the benefits of its being represented.
>
>>>True, after defining the symbols by humans it is possible to
>>>define mathematical relationships between the symbols. But
>>>mathematics has done none of the defining. It is a formal
>>>expression of the definitions provided by humans for the symbols
>>>and the relationships between them.
>>>
>>>And yes, doing that permits automated computation.
>>>
>>>My question, which I don't think you have answered, is why the
>>>world bank can't define its own symbols and relationships between them?
>>
>>
>>Indeed it can and should. The main question is what that
>>"definition" should consist of. If one creates only natural
>>language definitions, as in a dictionary, or simple links as one
>>might find in a thesaurus, then one has simply a dictionary or
>>thesaurus, suitable for interpretation by humans. I advocate
>>definitions of the terms in mathematical logic, in as expressive a
>>logic as possible. I believe the World Bank, and any other large
>>IT organization for that matter, should create formal ontologies,
>>reusing one of the existing large formal ontologies as much as possible.
>>
>>>> The fact that an approach under some broad moniker has failed
>>>> in the past doesn't have much bearing on our present case I think.
>>>
>>>And why not? How is the present case different from prior attempts?
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "universal language". I certainly
>>haven't used that phrase to describe any of the extant formal upper
>>ontologies. That's a very broad and underspecified phrase. You
>>might mean something like Esperanto, which is certainly different
>>from what we're discussing. You might also be referring to Bishop
>>Wilkin's 17th century treatise, or it's description in Umberto
>>Eco's book on "The search for the perfect language", which, as much
>>as I admire the work, has little to do with a formal ontology, and
>>in fact is more closely related to taxonomy building and a good
>>example of why that's problematic. Did you mean something different?
>Loglang would be a more recent example.
>
>And no, you have not used the term "universal language."
>
>I use the term "universal language" to mean a language, such as an
>ontology, which users are exhorted to use with its meanings, in
>preference to meanings they might choose to assign, in order to gain
>the benefits of automated processing. Granted if everyone agreed on
>a set of terms and their meanings, automated processing would be
>much easier to implement. However, given the varities of cultures
>and languages in the world, I don't think a universal language is possible.
>
>>As a more general point, even the failure of a particular idea
>>doesn't mean it can't be very successful in a more modern world,
>>with different supporting technologies. Statistical-based natural
>>language is not necessarily a new idea, but associated facilities
>>like large corpora, large disk storage and fast processors make it
>>a practical reality. There's been some discussion of MRI
>>technology in the news along these lines in the past few
>>months. However, we're very far afield of the point once we're
>>discussing philosophy of science, so I'll try to refrain from
>>further discussion on this subtopic.
>My concern on what may be a subtopic is that even assuming that
>great progress on tools for statistical-based natural language
>processing, that does not mean that any particular upper ontology
>has captured the meaning given to a term by a particular speaker. In
>other words, I find the notion that a speaker must give up their
>meaning in order to conform to a standard ontology repugnant.
>
>Hope you are at the start of a great week!
>
>Patrick
>
>
>>Adam
>>
>>>Hope you are having a great day!
>>>
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>>Adam
>>>>
>>>>At 10:00 AM 4/8/2006, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Adam,
>>>>>
>>>>>Adam Pease wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, there is a misunderstanding here.
>>>>>
>>>>>defining a mathematical logic between arbitrary unique symbols
>>>>>!= defining the meaning of arbitrary unique symbols
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, whatever symbols are substituted, the outcomes of defined
>>>>>operations would be the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is not the same as defining the "meaning" of a symbol mathematically.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hope you are having a great day!
>>>>>
>>>>>Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>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!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>Adam Pease
>>>>http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>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!
>>
>>----------------------------
>>Adam Pease
>>http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>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!
> (03)
----------------------------
Adam Pease
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|