[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and Algebraic Specifications

To: "Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:04:02 -0600
Message-id: <p06230904c20a3c8fb0d8@[]>
>The benefit of getting SAS and ONT to work together would be the
>ability to seamlessly cross over from one type of idea/information to
>another    (01)

Can you say what you consider to be the two types of information here?    (02)

>, also to narrow down the spectrum of "everything we know".
>Algebra may be able to cover what semantics cannot and vice versa.    (03)

That doesn't make sense. Algebra is a branch of mathematics, and on 
the face of it has nothing particularly to do with semantics. They 
aren't two 'approaches' to something.    (04)

>Techniques developed for one approach may be able to assist the other.
>I'm interested in comparing the opposite approaches to redundancy
>because, how could you tell if a knowledge nugget was already covered
>in another (sorry to use this word)... language? It would be ideal to
>identify redundancies across the whole spectrum to show wide spread
>knowledge or deep authoritative interest to push or elevate these
>sources and data chunks higher up for us surface skimmers/casual
>observers.    (05)

I really have no idea what this is saying.    (06)

>JH on SAS Redundancy: Not every arrangement of tokens constitutes a
>well-formed trait.    (07)

Well, of COURSE not. If every arrangement of tokens were well-formed, 
then the language would simply be all possible character strings, so 
would have no grammar, hence no syntactic structure, hence no 
possibility of being given a semantics. This is not 'redundancy'.    (08)

>  As well as syntactic redundancy (e.g., mandatory
>declaration of operators and variables), there are special language
>constructs (e.g., *assumes*, *implies*, and *converts*) whose primary
>purposes are a) to raise the chance that an error will cause a
>mechanically-detectable inconsistency, and b) to give human readers
>ways to grow and check their understanding.
>PH on ONT Redundancy Tool Support: More usually, the TOL *is* the
>logical form. For example, OWL reasoners typically work directly with
>some form of OWL syntax. Pat, can you please explain more?    (09)

I'm not sure what more I can say. OWL is a logic (actually a range of 
logics) and typically OWL inference engines work not by translating 
OWL to some other logic, but directly on OWL itself. Its not a very 
important point: inference engines often perform all kinds of exotic 
liberties with their input syntax in any case; but I was just 
reacting to Jim's apparent presumption that an OWL-to-logic 
translation was required.    (010)

This has nothing to do with 'redundancy', as far as I can see: but 
then, I really don't know what this word means in this context.    (011)

Pat    (012)

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    (013)

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    (014)

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