ontolog-forum
[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@[10.100.0.26]>
>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>