ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 01:23:41 -0500
Message-id: <20071104012400.GA58675@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dennis,

   Over the past decades, we have heard many remarkable claims about what this or that system can do, and the only response I can make is:

 

    *** don’t tell us, show us ****

 

   Is there a web site where we can log in and test these wonderful programs with queries and problems of our own devising?  If not, why not?

   If and when the tool is available for download, will it be self-contained or require other programs or utilities in order to function?

 

Pat
pat@xxxxxxxxx


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:

Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

Date:

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 17:37:04 -0400

From:

Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>

Reply-To:

[ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

[ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

References:

<E18F7C3C090D5D40A854F1D080A84CA44CD095@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><1B2253B0359130439EA571FF30251AAE044A87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><87642vq192.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><E18F7C3C090D5D40A854F1D080A84CA44CD1B1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <DE8DBB3E-07CA-4192-9133-E9B1AE7C57BA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 

Comments inline below.

 

Admittedly you may be skirting the self-promoting line (we've been

educated recently about that line), but you raise some issues that

might be interesting for our readership.

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dennis L.

Thomas

Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 2:04 PM

To: [ontolog-forum]

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

 

Steve, Sean and Peter,

 

Yes, "let's get on with the engineering."   We are proponents of what 

we call "theory-based semantics," meaning that from our perspective, 

the facts of the observable world are understood according to the 

theory that binds them.   Knowledge = Theory + Information, or 

Knowledge = Theory + Reality.  Well justified theory, such as 

scientific, axiomatic value-based understandings, business (buy low 

sell high, its better to have it sooner than later), etc., are more 

important than unfounded imagination.   Theory lasts decades, 

centuries and millenniums and makes sense of our world as we 

encounter it.  It understands the who, what, when, where and how much 

information of situations and circumstances.  For this reason, theory 

is also predictive.

 

LEO: Amen, brother. This is the right perspective. We think ontologies

are "logical theories".

 

Based on this, as a matter of practical knowledge engineering, we  

modeled/simulated very complex domains simply by integrating the 

knowledge content of books, policy and procedure manuals, documents, 

databases and the very knowledge in the minds of knowledge workers 

and subject experts.  As a result, our systems provided precise 

answers to who, what, when, where, how much, and how, why and what if 

questions within seconds and minutes when it previously took hours, 

days, weeks and even months to arrive at the same answers (developed 

and tested through 50 projects of national importance). http://

www.knowledgefoundations.com/pdf-files/2003KEProjects.pdf

 

LEO: Without yet having read this or seeming to advocate your approach,

I must say this is a good methodology.

 

That 2nd generation software system had a database backend, which 

topped out at the complexity barrier.  Now, our 3rd generation 

semantic knowledgebase system, called Mark 3, is designed to be a 

self-building, self-organizing and self-transcending system that 

scales to unlimited dimensions to simulate every from of human 

knowledge and to reason with that knowledge like people.  This means 

that non-programming professional can build very complex 

knowledgebase products, stored at Ballard/Shannon bit-limits, made 

available through conventional network and user systems.  A small 

semantic knowledgebase would have 10,000 to 50,000 concepts, a medium 

knowledgebase from 50,000 to 250,000 concepts and a large 

knowledgebase into the millions of concepts.

 

LEO: OK, now you are weakening your hold on my attention.

"Self-transcending" at least points you into no-no space: the finely

delineated (by folks who work in this area) space you enter when your

claims begin to be extravagant. When you say "unlimited dimensions",

our hackles rise higher. It seems there must be a learning component to

this, no? How does your system learn?

 

This is an enterprise tool, though we plan to offer a FREE limited 

trail copy the size of a large database for people to play with.  I 

will be developing an advance notice list for anyone who is 

interested in receiving this trial version.

 

LEO: I would like to obtain this tool. Can you describe some of the

foundations of this tool?

1) How do you capture and represent such wide knowledge?

2) How do you enable complex knowledge to be represented by

non-technical domain experts?

3) How do you scale well? I fully understand that there are proprietary

issues here, but would like you to guide us through potential shoals

while at the same time preserving your secrets.

 

Dennis

 

Dennis L. Thomas

Knowledge Foundations, Inc.

 

On Aug 31, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:

 

 

Steve

 

In the Odyssey, Odysseus was 'agathos' (good) exactly because he lied

and cheated in defence of his people, as was his duty as the king. I'm

not sure that is the forum to discuss whether we have progressed - or

whether this is an issue of philosophy or politics. I have read your

disclaimer.

 

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

> Steve Newcomb

> Sent: 31 August 2007 14:31

> To: [ontolog-forum]

> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

> 

> 

>                *** 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 Barker wrote:

> 

>>  At what level of complexity do I need to start

> concerning myself with

>> Semantics rather that just Pragmatics? At what point would

> one say the

>> robot "understands concepts", rather than behaves according to

>> particular pragmatics?

> 

>>  I should add that as we develop increasing complex autonomous

>> systems, we need to create architectures that provide proper

>> separation of concerns, so this is primarily a question about

>> engineering, rather than philosophy.

> 

> Autonomous military systems require significant "separation

> of concerns", especially including separation of the concern

> for humanity as a whole from concern for the success of a

> narrowly-defined military mission.

> 

> A robot that fetches claret is amusing, but an autonomous

> target selector/destroyer is monstrous.  If we must have such

> things, then it might be a good idea to insist that their

> behaviors reflect deep "concerns" about many things other

> than their narrowly-defined missions.

> 

> In a 19th-century novel that still reverberates strongly in

> popular culture, Mary Shelley wrote about what happens when a

> marvelous engineering task is accomplished in the absence of

> awareness of broader issues.

> 

> In a series of novels about robots, Isaac Asimov examined the

> implications of having "Laws of Robotics" that reflect the

> broadest concerns for the welfare of humanity.  One of the

> later novels is kind of a murder mystery; it's all about a

> robot who is already dead when the novel begins.  By the end

> of the novel, we understand that the robot had got himself

> into a jam in which he had no options at all, under the

> "Laws" he was bound to obey.  As a result, he suffered from a

> kind of halting problem.  It turned out to have been neither

> murder, nor suicide, nor a system failure.  In a sense, the

> Laws of Robotics were Broken As Designed (BAD), in that they

> did not provide a way for a robot to survive their demands.

> 

> It's so much easier to build a monster.  Let's just forget

> about those pesky philosophical questions.  Let's get on with

> the engineering!

> (;^)

> 

> -- Steve

> 

> Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant

> Coolheads Consulting

> 

> Co-editor, Topic Maps International Standard (ISO/IEC 13250)

> Co-editor, draft Topic Maps -- Reference Model (ISO/IEC 13250-5)

> 

> srn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

> http://www.coolheads.com

> 

> direct: +1 910 363 4032

> main:   +1 910 363 4033

> fax:    +1 910 454 8461

> 

> 268 Bonnet Way

> Southport, North Carolina 28461 USA

> 

> (This communication is not private.  Since the destruction of

> the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the U.S.

> Congress on August 5, 2007, no electronic communications of

> innocent citizens can be hidden from the U.S. government.

> Shamefully, our own generation, acting on fears promoted by

> fraudulently-elected rogues, has allowed absolute power

> (codenamed "unitary Executive") to be usurped by those very

> same rogues.  Hail Caesar!)

> 

> 

> _________________________________________________________________

> 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

 

 

 

 

 

Dennis L. Thomas

Knowledge Foundations, Inc.

Ofc (714) 890-5984

Cell (760) 500-9167

DLThomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.KnowledgeFoundations.com

------------------------------------------------

Managing the Complexity of Enterprise Knowledge

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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

 

 

 

 


_________________________________________________________________
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>