>John,
>
> My point was not that one could not specify how to draw a line
>in logic, but that specifying the line does not actually draw it - for
>that you have to translate some bit stream into so motor action, or to
>switch the CRT beam on at a particular point, etc. (01)
True, but... (02)
>My point being, that
>organizations do not operate computers to make lights on the front flash
>on or off, or as expensive room heaters. The meaning of a computer
>system is always the behaviour of the organization that uses it. (03)
... that is rather a stretch. The meaning IS the
behavior?? No, the behavior depends (in part) on
the meaning: but the meaning is what it is even
if nobody acts on the information. (04)
A very basic problem with your point is that it
seems to force us to adopt a process-based or
procedural approach to semantics, which takes us
exactly in the reverse direction of the evolution
from hard-wired specific codings to assertional
ontologies which has got us to the present. This
much progress was hard-won, and it would be a
great shame to be taken back to UML, or maybe
even Fortran, by worries arising from management
theory. (05)
>
> The reason for insisting on this point is that enterprise
>integration is about the behaviour of the organizations, and in
>particular, their behaviour in response to what their computer is
>telling them. If I have a collection of designs for an aircraft, a set
>of orders for parts and a stock of material, I expect to come in the
>following day to have a set of appropriately shaped lumps of metal, not
>a print out saying 'the machine could in theory make the parts you
>require'. Treating enterprise integration as a matter of making a
>program conform to specification, rather than fulfilling a business
>need, can be very career limiting (someone else's project - the
>automatic manufacture worked brilliantly).
>
> Perhaps a more useful question is not whether the ontology
>corresponds (or what ever phrase does not upset the philosophers) to
>reality, but what is the risk that I run if I assume you mean the same
>thing that I do when we use a term from an ontology. (06)
I doubt if it is possible to quantify this or
even define it reasonably, as it will depend so
heavily on what use is made of the information in
the ontology. (07)
>If I read on the
>menu of the Happy Haze pizza parlour '16 inch pizza with olives and
>anchovies', I will be disappointed if all I get is a pizza with two
>olives and two anchovies, disgruntled if I get one with feta and tuna,
>and refuse to pay if all I get is a strip of cooked dough 16" bt 1"
>instead of a circle 16" in diameter. However, at worst it will have cost
>only a few quid (or dollars). If, instead of pizza, I am ordering
>aircraft parts, then failing to fulfil the order exactly could cost
>lives.
>
> One might hypothesise an 'ontology risk factor', being the
>product of the difference between two interpretations of the same term
>and the impact that the difference makes. Unless I can quantify these
>risk factors, then I will not trust the Semantic Web for anything other
>than low impact actions. (08)
I am confident that the Sweb will survive being
un-trusted by conservative engineers for a while. (09)
Pat Hayes (010)
>If I can quantify these risks, I can then take
>a proper risk reduction approach, accepting higher levels of impact
>where the likelihood of differences is low, and reducing risks by
>investing in verification that we mean the same thing.
>
> Do you know of any work looking at 'ontology risk factors' or
>similar approaches?
>
>
>Sean Barker
>Bristol, UK
>
>This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process
>of public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the
>contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not
>represent an official company view.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > John F. Sowa
>> Sent: 16 August 2007 18:26
>> To: Barker, Sean (UK)
>> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
>>
>>
>> *** WARNING ***
>>
>> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
>> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>
>> Sean,
>>
>> I was away from my email for a while, and I'm just catching
>> up with some of the backlog. And I'd like to respond to your
>> comment of August 9th:
>>
>> JFS>> If you doubt my claim, choose any statement from any document
>> >> that specifies any implemented computer program, and I'll
>> >> show you either that it can be translated to this subset
>> or >> that it is a "comment" that is not necessary for a
>> complete >> specification.
>>
>> SB> I'm not sure that one can translate draw((0.0, 0.0), (1.0, 1.0))
>> > into common logic in such a way that common logic draws a line.
>>
>> Actually, that example is very easy to translate to Common Logic.
>> Following is a translation to CLIF (Common Logic Interchange Format):
>>
>> (= line (draw (point 0.0 0.0) (point 1.0 1.0)))
>>
>> And following is a translation to CGIF (Conceptual Graph Interchange
>> Format):
>>
>> (point 0.0 0.0 | *p1) (point 1.0 1.0 | *p2) (draw ?p1 ?p2 | *line)
>>
>> In this example, 'draw' is a function that takes two points
>> and returns a specification of the line between them, and
>> 'point' is a function that takes two numbers and returns a
>> specification of the point that has those coordinates. (And
>> if you like, CL lets you define a polyadic version of 'point'
>> that takes 2, 3, or N arguments to specify points in a space
>> of those dimensions.)
>>
>> Of course, this translation does not actually "draw" a line
>> any more than a computer program "draws" a line. But if you
>> choose any way of specifying the representation for a line in
>> any computer program, then it is possible to write CL axioms
>> that specify an exactly equivalent specification -- and you
>> can write those axioms in CLIF, CGIF, XCL, or any other
>> dialect of CL.
>>
>> The actual task of printing or displaying that line would be
>> performed by some hardware that takes the specification and
>> causes the image to appear on some hardware. But every step
>> of creating and transforming the bits and bytes that
>> determine that image can be specified by CL in a way that is
>> equivalent to any computer program you may choose.
>>
>> Although CL is *not* a programming language, it is possible
>> to write a program that would interpret any CL specification
>> in order to create the same data that would be generated by
>> the equivalent program.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>********************************************************************
>This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>distribute its contents to any other person.
>********************************************************************
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (011)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|