[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:03:04 -0500
Message-id: <47A3C148.3050007@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed,    (01)

I wasn't trying to apply any kind of filter on Google.  I typed
those sentences exactly as stated on the Google input line.    (02)

 > John is employing some filter on the Google results.  When
 > I ask for matches on "flower is a skunk", it reported 1100 hits,
 > not 11.  For "tulip is a flower" it reported 6070 hits, not 12,
 > and for "a tulip is a flower" 3600 hits.    (03)

I certainly don't want any kind of filtering.  When I go to
"Advanced Search", it says that I want to "find results" and
"with the exact phrase".  And I have the defaults "any language",
"any region", "any format", "anytime", "anywhere in the page",
"not filtered by any license", and "no filtering" for "safe search".    (04)

I thought that those were the most general options.  What options
are you using?    (05)

 > Nor is it good for anything.    (06)

I certainly am not recommending that simple method for deriving
an ontology.  I just used it as an example that there is a lot
of knowledge represented on the WWW that could be acquired
very quickly by systems that I believe will be developed
within the next 5 years.    (07)

 > I chose it precisely to demonstrate that the symbol "flower" has
 > more than one well-understood meaning, and taking any bald
 > statement about "flower" out of context makes it very difficult
 > to determine which of two almost totally unrelated meanings
 > was intended.    (08)

Of course.  I was using the examples that you and Avril chose.
I would use a decent language processor to read the entire web
page from which the knowledge is derived.  Note the word 'crude'
in my earlier note:    (09)

    "You can test that claim by a crude, but simple use of Google."    (010)

I suggested that test to show how much knowledge is out there.    (011)

For deep reasoning, I would insist on a representation in formal
logic.  But for commonsense reasoning, I believe that formal
deduction is not necessary.  Case-based reasoning using analogies
from very large resources, such as the WWW, is simpler and faster.
Furthermore, it can take advantage of much, much larger resources
than Cyc without requiring all the effort of defining large
ontologies or writing XML tags.    (012)

John    (013)

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    (014)

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