see my answers below, prefixed by **** (01)
P.S. These issues have been discussed in a series
of private emails between myself, John Sowa and
Pat Hayes. Since John has made his objections public,
I'm making my answers public. (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "KR-language" <KR-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantics of the mKR language (03)
> We already went around and around on this issue:
> RHM> The meaning of an mKR proposition is -- what mKE does to
> > the knowledge bases, and gives back to the human user.
> That is a fair statement, which I agree with.
> RHM> That being said, here's a definition of the semantics of mKR.
> > http://mkrmke.org/download/kewin.zip
> You have given a long list of things that your mKE programs
> can do with the mKR notation. Every one of those operations
> moves the notation around and performs minimal transformations
> on it. I have already agreed that those operations can be
> quite useful. But they don't come to grips with the meaning
> of the symbols in mKR.
**** I don't believe John or Pat have come to grips with the
**** meaning of symbols in any natural language, e.g., English.
**** The meaning of language symbols is tied to our sensory
**** perceptions of the real world. Our senses provide
**** comparisons & measurements of the entities that we perceive.
**** Knowledge begins with propositions which express these
**** measurements. Further knowledge is derived by abstractions
**** from these first primitive propositions. Our words give names
**** to our mental images which arise from our sensory perceptions
**** of entities in the real world. [see David Kelley, "The Evidence
**** of the Senses"]
> You have admitted that you don't yet do more complex kinds of
> reasoning. And the point that those of us who have been using
> and implementing logic-based systems have made is that if you
> want to do anything more with the meaning of the mKR notation,
> you must give a more precise definition of your language.
**** I have not tried to do more complex reasoning.
**** I have devoted my efforts to exploring different applications
**** to see if mKR could adequately describe those applications.
> The most serious defect of the mKR notation is in the very
> part you seem to be most proud of -- the at-phrases that
> specify what you call the context.
> When we pressed you to define what you mean by 'view', you
> admitted that you couldn't say anything more specific than
> whatever the author intended. That is a fair statement,
> but it implies that no computer today or in the foreseeable
> future will be able to do anything further to reason with
> those at-phrases.
**** I said that "view" identifies a list of propositions.
**** I expect a human to specify that list of propositions.
**** A computer can reason using that list.
> In short, your system will be limited to what any search engine
> does: move data around and find data that contains certain
> character strings. That is certainly useful, but it does not
> come to grips with the meaning of those strings.
**** My first comment addressed the meaning of those strings.
> John (04)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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)