Adrian
I have obtained permision to circulate the paper mentioned below, and I am
linking a copy to our wiki page
I have started Knowledge Abstraction as an issue for the Summit, and would very
much like to see your suggestions and ideas
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_IssuesAndCandidateResolutions/KnowledgeAbstraction (01)
Thanks a lot for the comments - of course there have been advancement
in the last 20 years - but not in knowledge abstraction artifacts for
representing knowledge on the web
unless you can point me to resources that indicate otherwise (might
have missed something)
cheers
PDM (02)
On 2/7/07, Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paola --
>
> Many thanks for the (hushed) Knowledge Abstraction paper.
>
> I see that it's from 1987, so, the good news is I believe there has been
> progress in the directions that Abbott point to.
>
> For example, in [1], we have integrated forward and backward chaining [2] to
> get very high degree of declarativeness -- much more than Prolog for
> example. As a result, [1] automatically maps English* concepts to and from
> the underlying logic. [1] also works as a conceptual layer on top of SQL
> [3], which it generates and runs automatically. Another link with the
> problem domain is automatically generated English explanations [1].
>
> Yet another, perhaps tangential, link is the ability to do the kind of
> abstraction in the little example [4].
>
> By the way, in my printout of of Abbott's paper, pp 668 and 669 are a bit
> garbled. So, apologies if I have missed some important points.
>
> Best regards, --
> Adrian
>
> Adrian Walker
> Reengineering
> Phone: USA 860 830 2085
>
>
> * By the way, this is not yet another 'controlled English' approach. the
> vocabulary is open, and so, to a large extent, is the English syntax.
>
> [1] Internet Business Logic, online at www.reengineeringllc.com . Shared
> use is free.
>
> [2] Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is
> Simple
> Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated
> Reasoning, 11:1-22
>
> [3]
> www.reengineeringllc.com/Oil_Industry_Supply_Chain_by_Kowalski_and_Walker.pdf
>
> [4]
> www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/DataModelling1.agent
>
>
> On 2/7/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > hush... I am sure Russell would want you to see it
> > great piece of work
> > PDM
> >
> > On 2/6/07, Adrian Walker <> wrote:
> > > Paola --
> > >
> > > Thanks for the link
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=27652 on
> > > knowledge abstraction.
> > >
> > > Do you have a pointer please to a non-subscription summary of that
> paper?
> > >
> > > Thanks, -- Adrian
> > >
> > > Internet Business Logic (R)
> > > A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
> > > Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
> > > Shared use is free
> > > Adrian Walker
> > > Reengineering
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|