John, (01)
I'm going to disagree with you here (and I tend to agree with a lot of
what you say, BTW). The reason you can effectively communicate with the
cast of characters in your examples requires much, much more than the
lowest level task common definitions. Many of these things are of the
sort that would be in a foundational ontology. Let me try to list them
to buttress my assertion;
* Time
* Location
* Interdependencies in general and specifically for each domain
your character is working in
* A host of concepts:
-contracts
-Residential building codes
-budgeting
-competitive pricing
-anatomy
-nutrition
-locale specific cuisine
-context to parse the communications correctly (02)
Like you, I have communicated successfully in countries where I did not
speak the language by a variety of gestures and pointing to objects
whose meaning facilitated common understanding. Once again, I think
there was sufficient grounding in enough concepts (like those above)
that the Chinese salesman in Kowloon was able to get me to understand
that I would pay less for the watch I wanted if I used my VISA card
instead of my American Express card. (03)
I don't think there will ever be universal agreement on a foundational
ontology that would have enough to it to be useful. I do think the
challenge for the application of semantic technologies is the
development of the capability to not only resolve definitions of terms
in namespaces when mapping between ontologies but to extend one's own
representation to include new concepts when encountered. (04)
Don (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:27 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking forward at the past (06)
Pat, (07)
You have made statements like that for a long time, but I fail
to see any evidence for that claim: (08)
PC> I believe that the best prospect for achieving semantic
> interoperability among a very wide number of users is for the
> users to agree on using the same common foundation ontology
> that is open to inclusion of elements from any source, mediated
> by a technical committee that is also open for membership.
> The structure of that ontology, and the content of the most
> basic ('primitive') concept representations will have to be
> agreed to by the users. (09)
For example, I may achieve "semantic interoperability" with
a plumber, a dentist, a clerk at the supermarket, a waiter
at a restaurant, and a contractor who makes some repairs to
my house. (010)
But in each case, the agreement is on specific task-oriented
details. There is never any need for the six of us to agree
on a foundational ontology. Instead, the agreement is always
on very low-level task-oriented details that are different
for each pair of interactions. (011)
Sometimes, I successfully interoperate with people whose knowledge
of English is limited to a tiny subset that covers that task. For
most of our common purposes, that subset is adequate. But if an
exception occurs, we may need to call a supervisor to mediate. (012)
The issues most important for interoperability of two agents
X and Y are limited to a very narrow *intersection* of the
knowledge that X and Y have. If agent X interacts with Y and Z,
X may use different intersections with each of them that have
very little in common. (013)
For the plumber, dentist, clerk, waiter, and contractor, that
common intersection includes dollars, cents, counting, and the
basic knowledge of the physical world that I share with my cat.
When I interact with Amazon.com, you can even omit the physical
world. (014)
John (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|