[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:09:41 +0700
Message-id: <c09b00eb0702080609v1b991bc9td03c21683e7cc51a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Jack -    (01)

> > Knowledge Abstraction is the process of
> >
> > a) representing K independently from  formalism
> > b) capturing K in a form that cane be easily represented by diferent 
> > c) representing K with the minimal and least formalised representation
> >
> > or?
> > (have your say)
> Huh?
> I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction, a page that almost
> looks like it has John Sowa's footprints all over it (conceptual graph
> of cat on mat).  There, the statement is made (among many):
> > In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein 
>ideas are distanced from objects.
> In statement a) above, it appears to me that the idea (K) is being
> distanced from the representational schema (my interpretation of
> "formalism") as compared to objects being abstracted. Would that be a
> new way to use the term "abstraction"?    (02)

 Knowledge is not exactly 'the idea' . I think KAb calls from a
different, albeit equivalent definition to other types of abstraction,
which it does not yet have
(dont you like doing new things?)
 I took a stab above, and yes,  but let us have your definition of
Knowledge Abstraction if you have a better one.  Just exploring
options...    (03)

> It seems to me that there are at least three different subjects in play
> here:
> <concepts/ideas/entities/...>,
> <knowledge representation implementations>,
> <abstractions as a the results of processes>    (04)

> It strikes me that I can abstract Paola DiMaio to instanceOf Person,
> throwing out lots of information *about* Paola. That's just a thought
> process. I can then represent that abstraction in a tiny taxonomy, the
> likes of which can be implemented in xml, rdfs, owl, you name it...    (05)

I think knowledge is more than data, and more than information and
less than wisdom
I dont know if you can claim knowledge about a person, in the same way
that you claim knowledge of thing -    (06)

so yes, different types of knowledge, possibly different abstractions,
representations, inferences....    (07)

> I think I get that the intent of OpenOntology was to capture knowledge
> (whatever that is) in some implementation-neutral way. I earlier
> suggested topic maps as being, um, precise enough to capture what is
> observed/thought/known/believed and still be able to be exported to any
> formalism/KR scheme desired. That suggestion got no traction here.    (08)

No traction? Is that all? You are lucky you did not get trashed
I think in this forum t people are too busy to pursue other's novel
ideas. So topic maps
are something that I think you should strongly explore in support of
this KAb discussion
if the issue did not get explored before. It's lonely at the leading edge.    (09)

> Just how precise would you have the class Person be? (given Person is an
> instance of an abstraction of, say, Paola DiMaio). Would you choose a
> different,  um, abstraction? To serve which purpose? Indeed, how do you
> define "precision"?    (010)

. Thats an implementation question I think, but we could elaborate on
that with a few case studies. I think the answer all depends on goal.
How precisely can you define your knowledge domain? Up to you, and to
your users and stakeholders. Same as when you
write a paper or do a project, you define the scope and limitations of
your work.    (011)

> Why does "mindmaps" come to mind here? They are simply concept maps
> (nodes with labeled arcs) with a particular twist: there is always a
> central concept in view. When you represent knowledge with simple
> structures such as that, you give up being able to treat the
> relationship instances (the labeled arcs) as subjects (nodes) in their
> own right. It strikes me that conceptual graphs make a more, um, precise
> way to capture your thoughts. Yes indeed! Mind maps abstract away all
> the fun (read: important/precise) stuff!
> Since I wear many hats, one of which says "topic maps", I'll point out
> that a conceptual graph, in my judgment, can serve as a fine topic map
> so long as you pay attention to representations of subject identity in
> each node.
>    (012)

Sorry - I said  mindmaps but meant topicmaps, I was following your
line of thoughts
but used another word.  Appreciate the distinction    (013)

Please add your suggestions/proposal/ideas (page needs editing)    (014)

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_IssuesAndCandidateResolutions/KnowledgeAbstraction    (015)

hopefully traction will come with momentum...    (016)

Paola Di Maio    (017)

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    (018)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>