ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning WebArchitecture and

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat Abdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:54:32 +0300
Message-id: <00a301c7ce13$4f212060$030aa8c0@az00evbfog6nhh>
John wrote:
''It is far *easier* to design systems to learn and adapt to multiple
ontologies than to design a single universal ontology.''
...That is a terrible assumption that is the cause of our currently
 inflexible, limited, fragile systems''.
 
I intentionally made a biconditional statement:
a single global ontology (O) if and only if powerful intelligent systems (I).
Or, O implies I as much as I implies O. Either both true or both are false.
 
The stated rule ''O iff I'' can be validated by empirical proving ''if O, then I'' and ''if I, then O''.
 
What we need to prove the hypothesis is to build the Intelligent Web or the Universal Formal Ontology, any of which  at the same time both cause and consequence. 
 
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning WebArchitecture and LinkedData

> Azamat,
>
> That is a terrible assumption that is the cause of our currently
> inflexible, limited, fragile systems:
>
> > ''A common world model'', or a single global ontology, is a
> > necessary and sufficient condition of powerful intelligent systems.
>
> It is definitely not necessary, and it is very, very, very far
> from being sufficient.
>
> In fact, one of the major problems of traditional AI systems is
> that they are brittle.  And one of the major reasons for the
> brittleness is that they can only work with one ontology and
> they are incapable of dynamically learning and adapting to new
> ontologies.
>
> If you want to make your systems flexible and powerful, you need
> to make them able to learn and adapt to *any* ontology that might
> be in use by any system they interoperate with.
>
> It is far *easier* to design systems to learn and adapt to multiple
> ontologies than to design a single universal ontology.
>
> John
>

> _________________________________________________________________
> 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

>

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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