Paola -- (01)
Thanks for the link http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=27652 on
knowledge abstraction. (02)
Do you have a pointer please to a non-subscription summary of that paper? (03)
Thanks, -- Adrian (04)
Internet Business Logic (R)
A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free
Adrian Walker
Reengineering (05)
On 2/6/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hay Pat
>
> Thanks a lot for the great discussion
> I really appreciate you interest in my argumentation although not all
> of it is clear or acceptable to you, as we obviously do not speak the
> same language (read metaphorically please) It looks like is going to
> take some time before I can
> articulate my thinking in a form that is understendable/acceptable to
> you. But I am sure we'll get there
>
>
> just a few very shorts
> - the approprateness of the term 'term' as first proposed in
> describing ontology, and its usage in maths and logic - your fields
> I gather - has been demonstrated in a related thread - but if you
> need futher 'proof' surely you'll find plenty in specialized
> dictionaries to help you appreciate my choice of wording further
>
>
> - 'requirements' are not solutions, are more like desirables (from
> the software engineering point of view). They may benefit from
> rephrasing, or rescoping, but they do not need to be approved
> -validated - , they are either met, or not met by a specification
> I would say that to my knowledge, to date, only some of the proposed
> requirements are met by current specifications
> and if you dont feel that they are 'valid'/ at this stage it does not
> really matter
> By opening this discussion I was simply bringing up some issues that
> have come up in recent projects, glad by now you accept some of them
>
>
>
> - knowledge abstraction is a widely relied upon notion
>
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=27652
> although not sure if taken into account by the state of the art in web
>ontology
> these days
>
> - we can drop any requirement that you like, it will come up hopefully
> again the future more clearly expressed/acceptable,
>
>
> Lets work on other issues as they come up,
> Will look at your KL work with interest
> thanks again for elaborating on the stuff
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >>
> > >>>An ontology is first formed at conceptual level (design) being
> > >>>inmplemented is the last step.
> > >>
> > >>What do you mean by "implemented"?
> > >
> > >I mean that the LOGICAL THEORY does not have a single language attached
>to it
> > >You can express a logica theory using a language, but the theory IS NOT
> > >the language.
> >
> > The theory is not the language, but it is (and now I am quoting an
> > almost universally accepted technical usage of 'logical theory') a
> > set of sentences in some formal language. So any such logical theory
> > has a single language associated with it, to wit, the formal language
> > it is written in. So the idea of a theory which is somehow
> > independent of a formal language, is (literally) meaningless. If you
> > mean something else by "logical theory", it would help if you could
> > explain what you mean.
> >
> > >>>A formalization (eg, in OWL, or IKL if you prefer a
> > >>more exotic notation) is not an implementation of
> > >>anything in the usual sense. Ontologies are not
> > >>software! (BTW, I think that this is not widely
> > >>recognized enough. Thinking of ontologies as
> > >>software is one of the recurrent motivations for
> > >>applying software engineering principles to
> > >>ontology design, which may be a mistake. Or not,
> > >>of course.) <<There is a wider argument there, later-PDM>>
> > >
> > >'implemented' is the physical dimension of a conceptual/knowledge
>formalism
> > >a formalisation is still implementation independent
> > >I think we learn this when we study systems engineering
> > >a system has a functional desgin, a logical design and an implementation
> > >I can implement a formalisation using different languages, owl being just
>one
> >
> > Please explain how your "formalisation" is written or specified
> > without using a formal language.
> >
> > It sounds as though you may be suffering from the misapprehension I
> > tried to describe in my last message. An OWL ontology (for example)
> > is not an OWL implementation of something else. It *is* the
> > formalisation. It is not itself an implementation of anything, as it
> > does not "run" or specify any kind of algorithm or behavior. It is
> > data, intended to be used by things that run (and themselves are
> > written in LISP, Java, Perl, etc.)
> > ...
> >
> > >>I see (reading ahead) that you are using the
> > >>third sense, as in "terms of the treaty", where
> > >>it means roughly the propositions contained in
> > >>the treaty (or ontology). That is not
> > >>conventional usage in the field, so you run the
> > >>risk (as we are here illustrating) of being
> > >>seriously misunderstood; but OK, yes of course if
> > >>you include the entire apparatus of the ontology
> > >>under the phrase "terms of the ontology" then
> > >>defining the terms indeed amounts to creating the
> > >>ontology.
> > >
> > >yes I intended the entire apparatus, (was trying to use generally
>understood
> > >'term' but onvious that does not work with the very clever people)
> >
> > Your sarcasm or irony here is misplaced. This usage of "term" is not
> > widely used in the field (and in fact, not even in my native English
> > dialect, to tell you the truth: I can recall my English teacher
> > shouting at me to "clarify our terms", and he meant the word in the
> > first sense.)
> >
> > >>OK, I see you were using 'source of knowledge'
> > >>far more broadly. OK, I will agree then with your
> > >>requirement. But we must recognize that many
> > >>ontologies have no such 'source' in this sense,
> > >>or may represent a distillation from many such
> > >>sources. I look forward to a future in which
> > >>ontologies themselves are considered to be
> > >>definitive sources of knowledge, so that your
> > >>'broad' view and my 'narrow' view may become
> > >>closer in scope.
> > >>
> > >well, I think that is the general, overall scope of an ontology
> > >If I want to create a system for the red cross to use, then I need to
> > >develop an ontology that reflects the red cross view of the world
> > >but if I want to create a system that works for 'any' emergency
> > >response, then I have to
> > >create a new, more neutral ontology. my problem is to reconcile
> > >different points of views
> > >to create a common language, in terms of conceptual as well a
> > >semantic reference
> >
> > OK, I see. We are using 'language' differently. I am using it refer
> > to the notation in which the ontology is written; you are using it
> > more to indicate the concepts, presumptions etc,. which the ontology
> > sets out to describe and define, the 'conceptual framework'. Again,
> > apparently a miscommunication.
> > ...
> >
> > >>Im really not sure what would count as "declaring
> > >>reasoning".
> > ...
> > >for example:
> > >I mean that today, when we (attempt) to design a system that can be
>synched up
> > >with emergency providers, we are told by the experts (some experts ,
> > >the most experts that we can put our hands on) that the best knowledge
> > >source to date is the red cross, which has the most complete set of
> > >conceptual and sematic definitions in the world
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > >But I have a problem with that
> >
> > Well, I might well have a problem with the 'in the world' part, but I
> > see no problem with at least starting with those concepts, and
> > modifying them if necessary.
> >
> > >1) the red cross ontology is not publicly accessible, and if is, it is
> > >not visible (could not find it online)
> >
> > Which is exactly the situation that the SWeb may in future prevent,
> > one hopes, or at least discourage. Have you asked the RC if you can
> > see their ontology?
> >
> > >2) assuming I can find it, the red cross operations are not smooth,
> > >and not transparent, and not necessarily efficient .
> >
> > Do you KNOW this, or are you extrapolating from some experience or data?
> >
> > >This is (I
> > >argue) also because their ontology has been developed top down, nor
> > >allows anyone to provide feedback. there could be intrisic bias,
> > >and knowledge misrepresentation due to the point of view represented
> > >not being a collectivee one, of diverse communities, but a 'standard'
> > >one, that may not rflect the reality of an emergency.
> >
> > Well, possibly: but on the other hand, one could say the same for any
> > ontology or indeed almost any repository of knowledge in any form.
> > Has the RC behaved in a way which would lead you to think that its
> > ontologies are broken?
> >
> > >I am studying this a little, and I have reason to believe that what I
> > >say above is true, aldthough do have results to share as such.
> > >
> > >So, the red cross ontology may well be the best ontology in emergency
> > >today, but we dont know on what assumptions it was developed (racial,
> > >gender, age and clas discrimination for example? may all be built
> > >into the system
> >
> > Indeed. But now, ask yourself: suppose this is true; is it likely
> > that there will be a declaration at the top, along the lines of
> > "Advised by the KKK", or "based on non-PC eugenic prejudices"? Of
> > course not.
> >
> > >, and the people would never know. why on eearth FEMA
> > >and Red Cross operate they way they do) It could be because their
> > >information system is designed to reflects very partial knowledge.
> >
> > Again, is this likely to be part of a declaration by the authors?
> > "Based on incomplete information" ??
> >
> > >I think that in order to be useful and widely adopted, an ontology
> > >should be accessible
> > >visible and transparent in the sense of declaring explicitly what
> > >assumptions it is based on
> > >I hope we are still talking about the same thing at this stage
> >
> > I'm really not sure. I am still very unclear quite what it is that
> > you have in mind. I can't think of a more explicit declaration of the
> > assumptions on which an ontology is based, than the actual ontology
> > itself. That, after all, *is* the assumptions made by the ontology.
> >
> > >>Declare how? What would one say? Would a
> > >>reference to a cultural tradition do? Or are you
> > >>asking for a formalized logic to be used on the
> > >>ontology (as I was presuming)? Or something in
> > >>between? What?
> > >
> > >havent worked it out yet
> > >you tell me
> >
> > Hey, you are the one who wants it to be a requirement. I didn't know
> > what you meant, and it seems that you don't know what you meant
> > either. I suggest we just drop this requirement, as nobody seems to
> > know what it means.
> >
> > >>What is the purpose of this declaration? Will it
> > >>influence how the ontology is to be processed by
> > >>machines? (I presume not.) Knowing the purpose
> > >>might help answer the above questions.
> > >
> > >also knowing the hidden agendas of an organisation
> >
> > But again: if an organization has *hidden* agendas, is it likely that
> > it will publish them in an open declaration?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >"Who is" simply tells Google to use a specialized set of
> > >>criteria in its next retrieval. And what you get
> > >>back certainly isn't natural language.
> > >
> > >I consider my knowledge queries on search engines a good example
> > >I type everyday define:natural language or what is: bla bla
> > >I get a set of documents written in natural language
> > >by natural language I mean 'not code' am wrong?
> >
> > OK, I guess I was taking NL to mean that one can have something like
> > a genuine conversation with the machine all conducted in, say,
> > English. This is often cited as the goal of a NL interface/query
> > service. It amounts to passing a limited form of the famous Turing
> > Test. And this is what we aren't likely to have in the forseeable
> > future. If you count Google-style predefined-phrase style
> > interactions (and indeed considerably better, eg a smallish grammar
> > for query sentences) then yes, that is feasible. But IMO it is often
> > not as useful an interface as is often assumed (especially for lay
> > users), because users have great trouble staying within the limited
> > grammar, and these systems tend to fail suddenly, which is very
> > destructive for the naturalness of the interaction.
> >
> > >Okay, to learn OWL you need to have some prior knowledge (be skilled
> > >at some things) or undergo the expensive training at stanford (2500
> > >usd) .
> >
> > No, nothing like. I'm not sure, but I bet one can teach the core
> > notions of OWL (which account for about 90% of the published OWL
> > content) to, say, bright middle school kids in about a day, and they
> > would have fun learning it. My granddaughter (age 7) understands it
> > reasonably well, though she has trouble understanding why anyone
> > would bother, and I havn't tried to explain 'subproperty' to her.
> > Now, the OWL/RDF/XML *syntax* is another matter altogether, but
> > nobody, even its designers, intended that to be for human use. For a
> > (still imperfect, but) much easier representation, take a look for
> > example at the OWL CMaps that COE produces. Download it from
> > http://coe.ihmc.us/.
> >
> > For a very simple brief survey of OWL, try reading the COE manual ,
> > section "COE notation and conventions", page 12 et. seq. . Or have
> > you tried the OWL tutorial, available on the W3C website?
> >
> > >>But my point is that any particular ontology is
> > >>going to be represented in SOMETHING: it might be
> > >>OWL or CL or GOFOL or Prolog or RDF or Concept
> > >>Graphs or CGIF or who knows what. But it can't be
> > >>represented in nothing, and it can't be
> > >>represented in some kind of supervening
> > >>?bernotation, because there is no such universal
> > >>notation.
> > >
> > >my point is that knowledge in any domain is first represented by concepts
>and
> > >words
> >
> > Not always. While this may be true for many cases, there is a great
> > deal of knowledge which is necessary for use by reasoners but is
> > rarely put into words in NL, because all adult human speakers already
> > know it, so they never have to say it to one another. And there are
> > distinctions which are central to ontology engineering decisions
> > which are almost never put into words, except by rather obscure
> > philosophers.
> >
> > > - I think grammars, and logical diagrams, e/r notation, plus
> > >controlled vocabularies
> > >do the trick to represent ontology from the KR point of view
> > >
> > >choice of formalism is personal
> >
> > Not if we wish to have our systems interact. The formalism in which
> > ontologies are written is in fact better thought of as an interchange
> > language than a personal, local "interior" choice. It is how
> > ontologies are transmitted from place to place on the Web, to be used
> > at the point of reception.
> >
> > >, and knowledge representation shold be
> > >as as independent as possble from formalisms to be widely usable
> >
> > Well, we really do disagree about this. First, I don't even accept
> > that KR without formalism is really worth being called KR. Second, I
> > don't think unformalized knowledge is actually much use in building
> > ontologies. So-called "common sense' knowledge is supposed to be
> > universally shared among competent adult human beings, but even if
> > that is true, it has not been of much use in the task of formalizing
> > it. And third, I don't think it is even meaningful to speak of
> > representing knowledge independently of any formalism or notation for
> > representing it. That is, unrepresented representation is an oxymoron.
> > ...
> >
> > >I dont have any feelings towards OWL, other than I am looking for
> > >someone who can teach me ohw to use it and I have not succeeded yet.
> >
> > I'm sure it would not be hard to get you to the level of an OWL user
> > reasonably quickly. If you like I can try to do it by email (though
> > off-list, I think :-) You might find the experience frustrating, but
> > join the club.
> >
> > >I
> > >can learn chinese over here, but OWL
> > >cant. I have also tried to use the protege tutorial, and havent
> > >gotten anywhere
> > >also asked around 'can you teach me owl' no luck yet. I can go to the
> > >protege training at stanford this spring but do you know what that
> > >means? Long distance travel, plus tuition fees, plus a new passport
> > >and the risk of being sent back on entry cause I am threat to national
> > >security.
> > >
> > >But I can understand any/most knowledge in plain language, so maybe
> > >owl should not be a reuquirement for knowledge representation on the
> > >web. I guess thats the point of that requirement.
> >
> > If by KR you mean represented in a form humans can read, then the Web
> > does that already. The idea of the SWeb (and of ontologies more
> > generally) is to provide KR which *machines* can utilize without
> > human intervention. For that, it must be formalized, and it must use
> > publicly agreed formal conventions.
> >
> > >I am advocating 'clear abstraction'.
> > >I can understant if abstraction can be alienating for some, and that
>something
> > >abstract does not mean anything to you, and that you cannot visualise
> > >'abstract knowledge'.
> >
> > I would certainly welcome some exposition of what you mean by this.
> >
> > >>
> > >>BTW, if I may blow a different trumpet for a
> > >>second, the best candidate so far for a single
> > >>overarching KR notation is I think the IKL
> > >>language ..
> > >>
> > >let me look at it, references? we can always work on it
> >
> > You can find a slideshow with many further pointers in it at
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_10_26
> >
> > The most useful is probably the guide, obtainable at
> >
> > http://www.ihmc.us:16080/users/phayes/IKL/GUIDE/guide.html
> >
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|