Ferenc,
Many of us are having difficulty with your prose.
Philosophers and logicians have contrived many ways to deal with the dynamic
nature of knowledge (arising from the dynamic nature of the world). Temporal
logics, logics of causality and other modal logics have been explored to
better understand the essential characteristics of time and change. Perhaps
you could help those of us with this sort of background better understand
your points by contrasting them with some of these formal approaches.
On the practice side, AI and robotics researchers have long dealt with
dynamic environments using inferential reasoning processes over distinct and
scoped entities called situations. In this domain, procedural knowledge is
expressed as rules for possible and desirable behavior over facts that are
associated with situations. Since situations are virtual entities, they can
be created in advance of taking action, allowing robotic systems and game
playing programs to explore the distant consequences of a possible sequence
of actions. Is this the sort of thing you have in mind when you talk about
procedural knowledge?
Thanks, Jim (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:20 PM
To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators (02)
I am sorry about not being clear enough below: (03)
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.
Ed says: I may be missing Ferenc's point here. (04)
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. (05)
Let me explain and let me get rid of controversial wording::
I am not talking about spatial and temporal notions. I am suggesting that
every element in an ontology, including objects that you call abstract
concepts are in principle "time stamped" and they as form have locations.
Not as ideas in the brain, but as forms shared in documents. In my view
abstraction is an operation, one of many other mental operations like
isolation, specification, projection, formalisation, interpretation, etc.
The results of these operation are objects, properties and relations where
relations are in fact verbs (operations). the sequence and product of those
operations complete with "folding" (inversion) genrates the path that if
recorded collectively is or may be an ontology of dynamic nature and if
indvidual learning path is traced, then a repertory of your knowledge
representations is created.Surely that can even make your level of progress
measurable and quantifieable.
Procedural knoledge is a different term used in contrast withj lexical
knowledge. procedural knowledge is the know-how, the how-to contetn
information of any learning material as opposed to the discussion of the
origin, history (the boundaries), the parts and divisiosn, the key playerrs, (06)
the achievements, the ltzest issues type of treatment of a subject.
It is typical, and also illustrated in Wikipedia that bodies of knowledge
under lexical headswords are rarely compatible, neither in structure, nor in (07)
vocabulary, not to mention their sequencing. Procedural knowledge however is (08)
more likely to be connectable, reusable, etc.
Since procedural knowledge by defintion focuses on future, it is even more
useful, at least in principle, because it is the future that we are most
interested in. (09)
I hove that has helped
regards ferenc (010)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Barkmeyer" <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators (011)
> This really addresses Bill Burkett's point
>
> Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> Burkett, William [USA] wrote:
>>
>>> Ferenc's statement that he's a linguist is important to understanding
>>> his (and my) perspective. I think linguistics has a LOT more to
>>> contribute to the field of ontology development than logic does.
>>>
>>
>> Well, of course, that depends on what aspect of ontology development you
>> are talking about but if you have in mind the creation of ontologies
>> from documents and domain experts (as opposed to the development of
>> reasoning and integration mechanisms) I'd probably agree.
>
> I can agree that a knowledge of linguistics, as a discipline, is
> important to any effort to produce an ontology by the *automated*
> analysis of documents.
> But I don't think that a knowledge of lingustics as a discipline
> contributes much to construction of a domain ontology by knowledge
> engineers interacting with written expositions or domain experts. That
> is, the practical ability to make correct interpretations of utterances
> doesn't depend on knowledge of linguistics. As someone else on this
> exploder just said (and I can't find the email), the correct
> interpretation of utterances depends primarily on understanding the
> domain, which may reduce to understanding what the same speaker/author
> said two paragraphs back. There is some practical knowledge of
> linguistics involved, along with practical knowledge of the psychology
> of communication. That kind of knowledge involves familiarity with the
> ways in which people express themselves, the ability to recognize rants
> and preoccupation with irrelevant concerns, the ability to deal with an
> expert's inability to abstract, and the ability to find the right
> question to elicit the information that fills in the gaps in
> comprehension. I still think of those skills as a black art; I don't
> know how to teach it; and whatever I have learned in that vein did not
> come from my education in languages and linguistics.
>
> I have worked with data modelers, information modelers and ontology
> developers for 25 years. All of those who actually do domain analysis
> are knowledge engineers. Only a few had any formal background in
> linguistics, and their skills were statistically distributed in the same
> ways as those with no such formal background. (My wife's standing
> observation is that all professionals are like auto mechanics: 20%
> understand their trade so well as to deal effectively with unusual
> situations; 60% understand it well enough to deal effectively with
> common situations; 20% cannot be trusted to change a tire. ;-) My
> experience of modelers, however, tends more to 40-40-20.)
>
>> But obviously
>> both linguistics and logic are central to the overall vision of
>> ontological engineering.
>>
>
> Make that "language and logic are central" and I agree completely.
> Linguistics as a field involves a great many subdisciplines that are
> nearly or totally irrelevant to knowledge engineering. (I have always
> been interested in etymologies and grammatical variance, for example,
> but I don't see those as being relevant to knowledge engineering, except
> in some passing way to automated text analysis.) OTOH, I agree with
> Bill and Ferenc and Rich Cooper that there are social, cultural and
> psychological concerns involved in knowledge engineering as well, as
> much as we mathematicians might want to believe that ontologies are
> somehow "pure".
>
> The problem that Chris and I are having with some of what Ferenc writes
> is in how he writes it. If we tried to engineer the knowledge contained
> in what he writes as we understand those writings, we would get
> inconsistencies and disconnections. The details of his position, as of
> this writing, are incomprehensible. I have a strong respect for the
> Nietzsche practice of making bold contradictory statements to get the
> audience out of its comfort zone, but then you have to be as good as
> Nietzsche in following that up with a consistent broader understanding
> of the terms and a compelling argument for the validity of that
> understanding. A compelling argument is logical, even in the field of
> linguistics, and it must start from some accepted or acceptable
> postulates.
>
> -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
> (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|