On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:19:55AM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> ...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. (01)
I'm not at all sure what an "articulable basis for a conclusion" is, but
why does one need such a basis any more in the case of an identity
assertion than in any other case? If the analyst comes to believe that
S1 is in Afghanistan, she writes: In(Afghanistan,S1). If she comes to
believe that individuals S1 and S2 are one and the same, she writes:
S1 = S2. (02)
> 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 FOL? Hardly, one has a
> merging rule that says Analyst X says proxy A and proxy B represent
> the same subject. Utterly outside of FOL. (03)
Not at all, though of course you need to use first-order theories that
enable you to express information about the appropriate objects,
properties, and relations. In particular, your rule above is easily
formalized in a first-order theory that contains appropriate operators
and terms to represent beliefs and/or assertions. There are numerous
first-order frameworks in which this is possible. (04)
> Apologies for the length to anyone who has gotten this far. I deeply
> respect the power of FOL and think it should be used whenever
> appropriate. But the key word in that statement is *appropriate.* (05)
Seems to me it is *always* appropriate when the point is representation;
I mean, why tie your hands expressively if the point is to get the
nature and structure of the relevant information right? That said, of
course, one might well use a weaker logic, or a non-classical logic, if,
say tractable or defeasible reasoning is needed. (06)
Chris Menzel (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|