Greetings! (01)
I think I have learned a lot last week on the ontolog list. I would
summarize what I learned as follows: (02)
1. To say that identification A and identification B are of the same
subject is logical inferencing. (03)
2. That generally speaking, use of a single common ontology is viewed as
starting premise for logical inferencing for error-intolerant
applications. (Which stands to reason (sorry!) since logical inferencing
with the degree of precision required makes it necessary to know all the
inferences that can be drawn.) (04)
3. That automated logical inferencing can be used for indexical purposes
to assist human users in assembling different descriptions of the same
subjects. (05)
4. Topic maps can be described as a sub-part of the larger framework of
logic that focus on indexical issues, which of necessity are concerned
with issues of identity and the inferencing necessary to mapping all the
identifications available together (whether actually co-existing in a
single location or not is an implementation issue). (06)
5. Topic maps are not required to use a single common ontology (for any
given topic map) since the indexical purpose of a topic map is the
gathering of diverse identifications of the same subject, which may have
been made using different ontologies (whether expressed or not). That is
to say that recording the different identifications of a subject as
identifications of the same subject is a goal in and of itself, whether
or not further efforts are made to create a resource that can be used
for inferencing for error-intolerant applications. (07)
6. Topic maps can use both automated logical inferencing as well as
users simply declaring identification A represents the same subject as
identification B, which is logical inferencing but not represented in
formal logic. (08)
Whether user behavior in such identifications can be harvested, cf. the
CALO project, such that their mapping behavior can be adopted by an
automated system is an interesting question. I suspect the answer is of
a "yes, but" nature. Accuracy will depend upon the range of the domain
to which the mapping is applied. Following my mapping behavior for
biblical texts would probably be useful, but if the system tried to
extend beyond that domain, probably less so. In that regard, it would be
interested to see if the inaccuracy beyond that domain by some automated
means would match my own inaccuracy beyond that domain. (09)
Some of this I knew already but would not have expressed in it quite
these terms. Other items, such as the realization that when used by some
posters, inferencing should be taken to mean inferencing for
error-intolerant applications, which is quite different in degree, from
inferencing for the purpose of collecting diverse identifications of the
same subject, was new to me. Both are "inferencing" but the operational
requirements for one are not the same as the other. (010)
Not a bad week all in all. (011)
Hope everyone is at the start of a great week! (012)
Patrick (013)
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 (014)
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|