[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Building on common ground

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0000
Message-id: <W8008265220771206984512@webmail4>
Christopher,     (01)

>Len, further to my own reply to you now at 
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2008-03/msg00254.html , 
>here are some small qualifications and extensions, but with a 
>useful pointer at the end, and maybe a big question for you.
>    (02)

First let me make an observation which supports my point (at the link above) 
about discussions taking place on this forum no being constructive resulting in 
"mission impossible". Note how Pat's C. call for recognizable facts vs. someone 
else intuition (assumed unrecognizable and unacceptable) led to brief and 
violent death of this thread, which is now referred to as "was building on 
common ground". Looks like we can't even begin doing so! Also observe that the 
brief history of this thread follows simple trajectory from opening your mouth  
to say something - to declaring language unsuitable - to realizing that it will 
never be suitable - to complaining about lack of funding - and finally starting 
a new thread to focus on (what else?) language. That leaves only one question: 
what language, exactly. If the answer is - Natural Language, then Ontology that 
everyone is looking for is, well, -  Nature! Ontology is only needed for 
domain-specific languages, because they required domain. Therefore I suggest to 
leave Natural Language to be just that and try to use it for advancing 
development of grounding for information systems, and leave reading books to 
people for whom they were written, - not computers.    (03)

>First two qualifications:
>a.  As intimated in the 3rd installment, it is of course the 
>inverse of the above join that covers the facts which give the 
>answer sought, linking a word to the customers who have bought the 
>relevant products.    (04)

Yes, the inverse of aggregation ("joins" are means, not the ends) is grounding. 
All information processing is going back of force along the pathways dictated 
by constraints at the ground level. The later must be ubiquitous and evolve as 
what you call a "Mainstream". The key notion, however, is "stream" that allows 
elementary ground level predicates to flow into such main stream and that allow 
main stream, in turn,  to continually re-structure those contributory streams. 
It mus work like natural water ways.    (05)

>b.  My reference to "semantic distance" was taking some liberties 
>in generalizing that notion.  Normally it refers to two ontologies 
>with a considerable degree of precise commonality already but with 
>some crucial differences which may be glossed-over.  If they are 
>glossed-over, the above telescoping or "scrunching" of logical 
>chains similarly produces a precise rendering of some of the 
>original data but with an analogous (and not equivalent) 
>glossing-over in the form of dropping knowledge of the 
>intermediating entities in the chain.  Both forms of data 
>abstraction are simplifications which hopefully do apply to the 
>situations in which they are used..    (06)

As non-Euclid geometry teaches us - any distance can be shortened by 
transforming (bending) of space. Moreover, it can be eliminated by simply 
projecting surfaces on different dimensions (line can be turned into dot). The 
same must apply to Semantic Space where Ontology is a surface. Such 
transformations are know as "morphisms" in Category Theory.      (07)

>And at last a question and a request to you, Len:
>In the above I have surely done a great injustice to your 
>"O(n^2)Space" concept by giving a rather tenuous example of the 
>kind of phenomenon I believe you have in mind with it.  I was 
>thinking particularly of this from your home page:  "writing 
>software always involves reduction of quadratic complexity as 
>close to linear as possible."  And so on on that page.  (By the 
>way, does that reliably make me think of those famous "six degrees 
>of separation" between all the people on Earth?)  Anyway, both 
>phenomena seem to me to involve those logical chains reduced to 
>more situation-useful forms.  Though I am sure you mean a lot more 
>than that, would you agree that my characterization is at least 
>partially accurate?
>    (08)

Yes, I agree in light of the above explanation. Chains characterize spacial 
extension (including those connecting people). Reduction of long chains to more 
"situation-useful form" characterize nature of "intention" as morphism.     (09)

>Perhaps, though, especially once I have produced my "4th 
>installment" and you have had a chance to study it, you could 
>consider giving this forum an overview of your site's relevance 
>from an ontological point of view?  I would certainly look forward 
>to such an enlargement of my own horizons.    (010)

As I made clear (perhaps too clear) I am still struggling to understand the 
nature of this forum (let alone the nature of Ontology as its subject). Once I  
do that I will be happy to present my own efforts. But at this point I am not 
sure that anyone except you would be interested.    (011)

>But now I must get on with that 4th installment, which will, I 
>hope, make all the above much clearer...
>    (012)

I admire your perseverance in a face of such obvious lack of interest yo your 
writings on this forum. I am looking forward to 4th installment.    (013)

>    (014)

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    (015)

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