ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:43:28 -0400
Message-id: <067001c9d310$03579a20$0a06ce60$@com>
Responses to a couple of John's points:    (01)

[JS] > *All* successful interoperability among computer systems
> from the 1960s to the present is based on *syntax* and *semantics*
> for just the narrow domains on which interoperability is intended.
>
 Of course.  And is anyone has no desire for any further advances in
interoperability to include broader multiple domains, then they can indeed
ignore FO issues.  I am addressing the issue of brad, general semantic
interoperability.    (02)

[JS] > That has been the dream of artificial intelligence for the past
> half century.  There have been some limited success stories for
> very specialized domains, but nobody has implemented anything
> that can do what you are asking for.
>
Thus far, right.  Are you suggesting that we freeze all attempts at machine
interoperability at their current level?    (03)

> PC> I emphasize again that we must clearly distinguish the problem
>  > of general, accurate *automatic* (without a human in the loop)
>  > semantic interoperability from all other interaction situations.
> 
[JS] > I completely agree.  That has been the dream of AI for the past
> half century and probably for the next half century as well.
> I encourage you to dream on.  Meanwhile, the rest of us can
> work on something that we know how to accomplish.
>
 I would never discourage anyone from trying to accomplish something useful
or even merely pleasant, no matter how narrow the task or domain.  I am
suggesting that:
 (1)  we can enable interoperability among machines on a broader level than
what has been done thus far, with a common FO;
(2) there will be very large economic benefits from doing that;
(3) there is therefore a powerful case for adequate funding for a project to
accomplish broad semantic interoperability.    (04)

Pat    (05)

Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx    (06)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:06 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:
> 
> Pat, Ron, and Ali,
> 
> PC> Your comments suggest that you are talking about a different
>  > kind of interoperability than what is needed for the computer age:
> 
> I am talking about the precise specifications that have been, are
> being, and will be used for interoperability among computer systems
> from the 1960s to the present and for the foreseeable future.
> 
> JFS>> people [have] been interoperating for millennia without any
>  >> common upper ontology...
> 
> PC> Yes, *people* do, but machines don't.
> 
> I'm happy that you recognize the first point, but the second clause
> is false.  *All* successful interoperability among computer systems
> from the 1960s to the present is based on *syntax* and *semantics*
> for just the narrow domains on which interoperability is intended.
> 
> That is *task oriented* interoperability, which works beautifully
> for both people and computers.  If you take a taxi in New York,
> your chances that your driver is a native New Yorker are almost
> zero.  But you can interoperate on that narrow domain.  The same
> kind of task-oriented interoperability works for communications
> among computers and mixtures of people and computers.
> 
> PC> The sort of accurate *semantic* interoperability that requires
>  > a common foundation ontology (or something like it) is the ability
>  > for a *machine* to take information placed in a public repository
>  > and properly interpret it and make important decisions based on it.
> 
> That has been the dream of artificial intelligence for the past
> half century.  There have been some limited success stories for
> very specialized domains, but nobody has implemented anything
> that can do what you are asking for.
> 
> PC> That is possible if and only if the information is specified
>  > with the kind of precision that a common foundation ontology
>  > can provide.
> 
> That it completely false.  Precision and generality are totally
> different goals.  Following is a quotation by C. S. Peirce that
> is just as true today as it was a century ago, and it will still
> be true a century from now:
> 
>     It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme.  Only,
>     one must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain.  It is
>     equally easy to be certain.  One has only to be sufficiently
>     vague.  It is not so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly
>     certain at once about a very narrow subject.
> 
> In short, if you want the kind of precision necessary for
> successful interoperability among people or among computers,
> you have to narrow the domain to a precisely specified *task*.
> 
> PC> I emphasize again that we must clearly distinguish the problem
>  > of general, accurate *automatic* (without a human in the loop)
>  > semantic interoperability from all other interaction situations.
> 
> I completely agree.  That has been the dream of AI for the past
> half century and probably for the next half century as well.
> I encourage you to dream on.  Meanwhile, the rest of us can
> work on something that we know how to accomplish.
> 
> RW> My Visa card is good around the world and somehow the various
>  > banks are able to make sense of the transaction and transfer
>  > the funds correctly and split the fees, in spite of having lots
>  > of different accounting systems and banking laws...
> 
> Your examples illustrate what we know how to do very well today.
> Good ontologies for those *tasks* can make them more general and
> easier to implement, extend, and use.
> 
> AH> If the goal is to identify a single theory which everyone
>  > subscribes to -- i think we're chasing a ghost. However, if
>  > the end goal is to identify several of the major / influential
>  > paradigms and to explicate how they interconnect with one another,
>  > and then to identify the translations / mappings between them to
>  > enable (partial) interoperability - then i'm all for it.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> AH> Note in my response, I don't disagree that there need be an
>  > overriding framework to make sense of the sundry ontologies now
>  > available. However, I suppose I disagree with you [PC] that the
>  > solution is a foundation ontology (unless of course you meant
>  > one for the abstract properties of relations and functions).
> 
> I believe that something along those lines should be our goal.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (07)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (08)

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