[ontolog-forum] (no subject)

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jiml, and Andreas,

 

The way I look at FO as a model or a paradigm to describe reality as part of natural languages makes me feel unhappy 1) about its aspect or viewpoint. You tend to call those words abstractions, concepts, etc. and use what I call the Divine Aspect. In any proposition/sentence or clause we have three grammar persons and all our statements belong to a specific grammar person. If we discard the audience and elimate our knowledge from space, because "we abstract" our message, we lose connectivity. If we do not represent the way concepts are created over time, again we enter timelessness, the Divine Aspect. 2) about its the words used to describe relations. I feel that all concepts are the product of abstraction, one of the several mental operations that we perform on the DATA, such as objects and properties, all meant to be one class of semantic primitives that should be able to link up with the various domain, if our knowledge of the world were not divided into linguistic (see dictionaries) and lexical (see lexicons) knowledge. If you do translation, you will recognize that to do a good job, you need to be qualified in both areas and that there is a concrete-abstract and generic-specific continuum of words, meaning that you get proper names, proper nouns, common nouns and the even more "common", the so called "absract" nouns that need to be traversed in order to explain something to somone who finds your wording not specific or concrete enough. 3) about the need to change aspects as part of processing and connecting data. I have tried to list the operations that enable such change of aspects earlier, showing how you can move from seeing an object defined in terms of its properties, then take one of its properties as an object and see the next group of properties, etc. This sequence may go on and on and of course is very difficult to follow by human mind, just az a maze is without using a pencil. By the way the operations include:  isolation, abstraction, specification (concretisation), generalisation, formalisation, interpretation. They come in pairs, like you shift from an object to another by isolation (and abstraction 2), from one object to properties by abstraction 1, from an object to relations by formalisation and from realtion to object by interpretation, etc.

I am in the process of clarifying my own thoughts in an effort to point out that procssing natural languages on a statistical basis does not offer a correct theoretical foundation for MT, hence AI either.

Ferenc 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jim Rhyne" <jrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:00 PM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators

> 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
>
> -----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
>
> I am sorry about not being clear enough below:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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,
>
> 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
>
> vocabulary, not to mention their sequencing. Procedural knowledge however is
>
> 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.
>
> I hove that has helped
> regards ferenc
>
>
>
> ----- 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
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
 

Ferenc/Frank

 

Mobil: 06 70 5766786

http://www.firkasz.com

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)