Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well said Pedro!

Now I cannot stop myself from speaking up after seeing so amy nice people agonizing aound the future of their career and field without seeing what went wrong and where.

1. On syllogism. This is the academic version of playing "now you see it, now you do not."

A's are members of set B

They are the extension of the concept B

But concept B has an intesion (as every concept does) as well, including C (a property)

So there is nothing to wonder about A disdplaying C

>    Every A is a B.
>    Every B is a C.
>    Therefore, every A is a C.
I have already hinted at that but I was brutally silenced.

2. Your ontologies are a mess. You are trying to synchronize and coordinate a haystack. No go. The trouble is that you sneaked time in the concept of event. That was a gross mistake. Spacetime should be dealt with as it deserves. Because they (de)limit the life/existence of an object, whether real or conceptual (mirrored).

3. You have snatched and privatised the concept of Semantics from Linguiistics and made another mess. Now Machine Translation produces garbage by the tons, subtitling and captions on Sky TV based on online speech recongnition are producing hilarious blunders in misspeling, etc. (But there is nothing funny about that piece of software as it may be run as in a testbed for use later in telephone conversation surveillance) Translators get out of their jobs, translation prices are forced down and  you do not even know what you are taliking about when speaking ontology meant to serve WordNet etc..

4 .Intelligent amplification or augmentation is sought by many, e.g. by Bootsrap organisation, Kurzwell and some others and before they removed a webpage, I saw their vision of a cast society in the US based on the level of access to computer stored knowledge representations. Ontologies as they are today look esoteric already to the people, save your branch. No sane translator would consult an ontology, because that is not the way translators' mind work and that is not how they see meaning, syntax, etc.For example

5. All the effors to picture cocneptual realtions, including Buzan and similar junglers are futile if you can only think of relations in the terms as you do now.

5. Syntax parsing will never get you a resolution that makes sense semantically. Forget about Frege.You need semantic parsing, if you know what that means.

 

Sorry about the heat, I am still pissed for being labelled incoherent for my last contribution.

But it is nothing personal. You just carry on diddling.

 

Regards,

Frank

---

From: Vasco Calais Pedro <vasco@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 26 January, 2009 5:40:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

> a complete _expression_ in L is uniquely determined by its *form*
>    (i.e., syntax) without any consideration of any background
...
> In this sense, Aristotle's syllogisms are formal, even though they
> use a subset of the words and syntax of a natural language.  For
> example, following is the *form* of the pattern named Barbara:

>    Every A is a B.
>    Every B is a C.
>    Therefore, every A is a C.

> When the letters A, B, and C are replaced by arbitrary common nouns,
> the interpretation of the syllogism is uniquely determined --
> provided that the middle term B is required to apply to exactly
> the same individuals in both premises.

> John Sowa

By saying "provided X" aren't we introducing background knowledge? I.E
aren't we considering background knowledge implicitly?

In the absurd we could say

"Every lightning rod is a conductor"
"Every conductor studied music"
"Therefore, every lightning rod studied music"

Aren't we introducing the background knowledge of the word 'lightning rod'
in determining why this is false?

Vasco Calais Pedro




_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)