>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)
|