|
Paola,
Thanks Paola, some of the components are open source.
Dennis
Please consider releasing an open source version/components if/when you can It might bring additional value to your product Look forward PDM On 11/5/07, Dennis L. Thomas <DLThomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Leo,
This discussion is two months old and I want to honor the rules of
the forum since we are a for-profit, proprietary company. So as a
final and quick answer to your question, our semantic product
generates knowledgebase products that do not have tables, fields or
indexes, it is declarative, and it is self-transcending because
programmers do not have to reconfigure the architecture to
accommodate new and different concepts, ideas or thought patterns -
it does it on its own. It replaces programmers, though integration
is necessary if using the technology as a virtual-knowledgebase for
databases.
We expect this tool to be ready by the San Jose Semantic Technology
conference.
Dennis
On Nov 3, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
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
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
-- Paola Di Maio School of IT www.mfu.ac.th*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Dennis L. Thomas
Knowledge Foundations, Inc. Ofc (714) 890-5984 Cell (760) 500-9167 ------------------------------------------------ Managing the Complexity of Enterprise Knowledge
|