Smith, Barry wrote: (02)
>> Finally, it is FOL that imposes limitations on mapping.
>> Assume that we have an experienced analyst that is reviewing
>> information that has been recorded in a subject map using subject
>> proxies. Due to their experience, they have reached a conclusion that
>> what appears to be two distinct individuals is actually one. A
>> conclusion that would result in merging proxies that represent the
>> purchaser of weaponized anthrax and a recent entry into the US.
>> They may not have an articulable basis for that conclusion and so FOL
>> is not going to be of any use. Should they simply not request merging
>> the proxies on the basis of their judgment (assume the analyst is
>> also identified as a subject) since they have no way to express it in
>> Hardly, one has a merging rule that says Analyst X says proxy A and
>> proxy B represent the same subject. Utterly outside of FOL.
> Why is 'a = b' outside of FOL?
> BS (03)
The *analyst* and not an automated reasoning system using FOL is
entering 'a = b'. (04)
I think we need to distinguish between representation of a rule in FOL,
which is your case, versus a reasoning system using FOL. (05)
If there is no information articulated in the system on which to base an
FOL process, then it can't ever start. Yes? (06)
Hope you are having a great day! (07)
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 (09)
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! (010)
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 (011)