Ferenc wrote:
>
> ... I have been trying to visualize the
> condition where objects, properties and relations change theri character
> and they become one of the other two as a result of mental operations.
> ... So jsut a few examples
> One of these operations is abstraction
> that helps you see the properties of an object and create a list of such
> properties.
> Then by taking one of those properties as an OBJECT, you can go on to
> define another set of properties. (01)
This is quite valid. The issue of "chang[ing] their character" arises from
the limitations of first order logic. Computational complexity becomes
greater when describing properties of properties and reasoning about them.
In higher-order logic, one can treat relations, classes, and statements
"relation instances", and instances of classes and make statements about
them using relations which accept such classes. The Cyc reasoner has been
doing this since at least the mid-1990s. (02)
Adrian, below, addresses another issue: rules can be defined to conclude
class membership and new statements based on other statements. This can
include rules reaching conclusions based on data in database tables. This
is broader than defining a "concept ... by reference to its properties or
by reference to its instances." (03)
-- doug (04)
> Ferenc
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Adrian Walker
> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx ; [ontolog-forum]
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 6:35 PM
> Subject: Re:
> [ontolog-forum]Ontologiesassocialmediators(was:Ontologydevelopment
> method)
>
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> You wrote
>
> ...A concept is defined by reference to its properties or by reference
> to its
> instances. In many cases, the reference to instances is exemplary, and
> intended to be inductive. Precisely because these lists (properties and
> instances) are open and grow with experience, the process is clumsy and
> does not always produce "perfect" alignment of the concepts.
>
> There's actually another way to define a concept, one that to some
> extent bridges the person-machine gap. You can define a concept in
> terms of other concepts. For example:
>
> we need to reduce projected world yearly emissions of CO2 by some-number
> million metric tons per year by 2025increasing some-activity by
> some-amount percent would reduce world CO2 emissions by 1 million Metric
> Tons/yr
> multiplying that-number by that-amount and rounding to 1 place gives
>
>some-quantity----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------increasing
> only that-activity by that-quantity percent by 2025 would meet world 2005
> CO2 emission requirements
> In the example, the concept expressed by the last line is defined in terms
> of the concepts in the first three lines.
>
> So, one might ask, is there infinite regress here? Actually no, because
> one can ground a concept of this form by using it as a heading for a
> table of data [1,2].
>
> -- Adrian
>
> [1] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/CarbonDioxideEmissons1.agent
>
> [2]
>
>www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> FERENC KOVACS wrote:
> > In order to be able to agree on any piece of knowledge we must
> establish the identity of the subject of discourse and align our own
> concepts against each other.
> >
>
> Yes. But we cannot expect such alignment to be perfect in any sense.
>
> > Such an alignment is not possible by using object, properties and
> relations and events as identifiers. Even if we agree that a concept
> is an objectand an object is a totality of propeerties and a list of
> real life items displaying/materialising those properties (usually
> also used as examples). These lists must be open as they grow with
> the advance of learning.
> >
>
> And yet, this is exactly how people have always succeeded in
> communicating concepts, and assigning shared terminology. A concept
> is
> defined by reference to its properties or by reference to its
> instances. In many cases, the reference to instances is exemplary,
> and
> intended to be inductive. Precisely because these lists (properties
> and
> instances) are open and grow with experience, the process is clumsy
> and
> does not always produce "perfect" alignment of the concepts.
>
> But like human communication, no claim is made that ontologies produce
> perfect alignment of the intent, either. What is critical is that it
> produces practical alignment -- the term serves the purpose of the
> interpersonal communication; the ontology is reliable with respect to
> the properties cited.
>
> > Because the process of increasing our knowledge is not recorded,
> the path is important for the individual and the community.
>
> This is true. That is, the concept that any person has, or any
> community shares, is formed by experience, and will reflect that
> experience to some extent. And the varying ability of humans to
> abstract and analogize means that different individuals may acquire
> different concepts from the same experience.
>
> ["Some people can learn from the mistakes of others; some can learn
> only
> from their own mistakes; and some don't seem to learn from either."
> --
> Mark Twain]
>
> > resolution rather than controversion is required.
>
> That is simply not true. Both are required. We learn from comparison
> and discrimination, but also from counterexamples and false analogies.
> "All that glitters is not gold."
>
> > But from the very beginning of schooling we pass on knowledge in
> school subject frames without harmonizing definitions or
> cross-referencing.
>
> Yes, but no one's education stops there. At some time, commonly
> supposed to be around age 12, children become capable of critical
> thinking. And thereafter, in some curricula, we try to teach them the
> skills of argument, comparision, unification, etc., in the hope that
> this will lead them to harmonization and cross-reference. But those
> are
> skills and they depend in part on individual talent. Just as no
> amount
> of coaching can make an average striker "bend it like Beckham", no
> amount of teaching can create an Einstein.
>
> > Today you have concordance programs and it would be a simple job to
> find out any inconsistencies in usage, adpect or approach.
> >
>
> I hope no one believes this. The equivalence of the concepts in the
> heads of two authors is unknowable. Some level of practical
> equivalence
> may be gleaned from their writing.
>
> This is also where the problem of the culture of speech communities
> enters in. A frequent phenomenon in government and large corporations
> is management writing that is intended for upper management and is
> confusing or contradictory for the people actually doing the work.
> The
> communities use the same catch phrases for the same subject matter,
> but
> they are used at different levels of abstraction and with different
> intent. A concordance, however, would likely identify them as having
> the same meaning, because the environmental terminology matches, by
> (intentionally) having the same kind of differences in interpretation.
> Think of "Service-oriented architecture".
>
> > Therefore the representation of knowledge should not be static as in
> abstract networks, but dynamic, thus procedural, which means that
> time and space must be included in an ontology together with verbs
> that represent realtions at a better detail (for the sake of
> identification) than the current relations you know well enough are
> insufficient.
> >
>
> I may be missing Ferenc's point here.
>
> This may be an argument for what should be in a physical ontology,
> but,
> to follow an earlier line, I cannot imagine how to apply spatial
> notions
> to most concepts in linguistics or psychology or even the famous
> oenology ontology. And the application of temporal notions to those
> fields reflects specific dynamics that are concepts in those fields,
> such as "phonological/consonantal drift" and "aging". Dynamic
> properties are just properties. Concepts are verb-like and noun-like
> and modifier-like; some of the verb-like concepts are "dynamic" in
> nature. "procedural" is an even narrower concept.
>
> The dynamic behavior of a body of knowledge is a different concern
> from
> "dynamic concepts". As Ferenc says, the sum of all human knowledge is
> constantly growing. The question is: How does that relate to
> knowledge
> engineering?
>
> The representation of knowledge in any captured form, including
> ontologies, is by definition static. It only changes by replacement.
> Its longevity and value is dependent on the breadth of experience that
> was represented in the encoded knowledge itself, and the relative rate
> of evolution and revolution of all knowledge in that domain. Isaac
> Newton's physics was accepted for 225 years; Noam Chomsky's
> linguistics
> was accepted for about 30. And both are still respected, but they are
> now understood as being valid only for a certain set of uses and in
> certain views. Nothing we do about knowledge engineering as we
> understand it can change this. When there is more knowledge in an
> area,
> some elements of some commonly used texts and ontologies will be
> obsolete and perhaps invalid, or like Newtonian physics, no longer
> valid
> for all uses, but still valid for many of the same old kinds of uses,
> including most new instances of them.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (06)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (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)
|