Mike Bergman wrote:
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> I just want to point out an important class of common triads.
>>
>> > Examination of the dependencies in a ternary or quaternary
>> > relationship often reveals an intermediate object that has
>> > semantics and should actually be called out in creating
>> > a strong ontology for the domain in question.
>>
>> All the basic arithmetic operators, + - * /, take two inputs
>> and generate one output. Trying to represent simple arithmetic
>> expressions with only dyadic relations creates very awkward,
>> unnatural and unreadable statements.
>>
>
> Of course, the purpose of ontologies as specifically defined in
> this forum is not to be either natural or readable. If we wanted
> readability, let's discuss literature.
>
> Sure, it is great to be able to look at a text representation of
> an ontology and to understand it as human readable tokens.
>
> But the real reason we are doing all of this is to engage
> reasoning and inference engines to assist us in doing things. Who
> cares what the language is or whether the basis is FOL, set
> theory, description logics or category theory? Are there tools
> to handle these assertions? Do we trust them with our businesses
> and livelihoods?
>
>
This strikes a cord with me. It has been almost 30 years since I looked
at the underlying storage page of a database (CODASYL at the time) and
it was anything but readable. The underlying storage structure is the
least of my problems with ontology. If there are different languages and
data structures used to store or exchange ontology fragments, then the
tools should should have imports and exports to handle this.
The tools should be human usable and should hide the underlying
structure. When I enter transactions into an accounting package, it
deals with the storage of records; it tells me if my transactions are
valid; I don't even care where the numbers are held. If I need to send a
copy to my accountant or merge her changes back into the current master,
it is automatic. (01)
Lets balance the "angel choreography" with some practical discussions
about the use case for ontology, the tools, the success stories, the
ontologies that for parts of recognized standards or support recognized
standards.
What are the best tools, what features are missing, are there issues
with inter-tool transfer that need fixing. (02)
> IMO stuff here recently is getting seriously untracked. Is this
> the [ontolog-forum], the [sophistry-forum], the
> [arrogance-forum], the [put-down-forum] or the [do-nothing-forum]?
>
> Great hopes for great ontologies backed by big federal dollars.
> What is this, the EU? (I know, that statement is parochial and
> out of line; I apologize; just keeping with the recent tone
> around here.)
>
> I appreciate sitting at the feet of the masters, but it is
> tiresome to be subjected to re-treaded and tiresome tirades. How
> many times do you want to see my own URLs? Our elders are failing
> us. . . .
>
>
Get the undisputed/hotly disputed facts and their counter-arguments onto
the wiki and try to use the forum to move forward. (03)
> Don't like product promotions? How about silly puffery about
> "openness"? How about constant ad hominem attacks on Cyc, OWL,
> semWeb, RDF, you name it? Is self-interest only a direct
> relationship with ownership or authorship? What is this
> accomplishing? Where is the shame? It is hardly like what this
> forum wants to achieve is widely appreciated.
>
> So, let's be smart: we'll eat our young and put down what is not
> our own because our narrow self interest or puffed-up ego is more
> important than reaching out to the broader public.
>
> The respect I have had for many on this forum has been eroding
> (and perhaps even now for myself as I cease to be a mostly silent
> lurker). My goodness; where has grace and humility gone?
>
> Forgive me for weighing in; just someone wondering why I still
> subscribe to this list. Folks, for all of the erudition, I have
> had it up to here ...
>
>
"angel choreography" is only helpful up to a point and then it just
creates divisions that are fuelled by heat rather than light.
> Mike
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|