ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Context in a sentence

To: Godfrey Rust <godfrey.rust@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:41:38 -0800
Message-id: <af8f58ac1001280641h5e02bf10y141c22918eb4e70c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you Godfrey. I too, am with you (and am glad you stepped up and
say it), on not being convinced that restricting the entire community
because of a very small number (like one or two members) tries to use
the forum in a way inconsistent with what the community is charted to
do.    (01)

> [GR]   I would be happy
> for Peter (Yim) to occasionally be a little more proactive in suggesting
> that certain threads are off topic; perhaps that happens off line in any
> case.    (02)

[ppy]  My usual practice is: first 'suggestion' one-on-one; second
'warning' copied to my other co-conveners; third time, I try to put
'peer pressure' on it by requesting cooperation with a post to the
list (hoping to be more effective if I get community support ... or,
finding out I am wrong in the first place.) When you see it 'argued'
on the list, it's way beyond my ability to get the issue resolved
off-line.    (03)

Thanks & regard.  =ppy
--    (04)


On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Godfrey Rust
<godfrey.rust@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John
>
> I'm glad to see you already breaking your own guidelines - I wasnt convinced
> it was a very viable model to start with :-)  From my point of view I'm
> happy for you, and many others on this forum, to post many times a day if
> you feel so inclined because your posts are always worth reading, and it
> preserves individual threads (as you have done here - unlike me who has
> hijacked this thread to comment on another!) rather than mashing them
> together. The underlying issues about conduct here, as others have noted,
> are mutual respect and keeping a sanity check that a topic doesnt stray too
> far off the stated core agendas of this forum, which I interpret to be
> related but several and not confined just to repositories. I would be happy
> for Peter (Yim) to occasionally be a little more proactive in suggesting
> that certain threads are off topic; perhaps that happens off line in any
> case.
>
> Godfrey    (05)


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Context in a sentence
>
>
>>
>> Ali,
>>
>> I'm violating my one-note-per-day recommendation because I wanted
>> to address the following point:
>>
>> AH> The theories / ontologies in COLORE do not constitute one single
>> > giant lattice.
>>
>> Of course not, because the lattice is infinite.  It represents all
>> *possible* theories that can be stated in any given logic.  I use
>> the term 'hierarchy' for that subset of *currently defined* theories
>> that happen to be stored in any given repository.
>>
>> AH> Unless I have misunderstood, whereas the lattice mentioned in
>> > your work consists of a single relation "logical extension,"
>> > there are multiple links in COLORE: specifically representation
>> > theorems / definable interpretations etc.
>>
>> In my KR book, I adopted the three basic operators of the AGM
>> axioms for theory revision:  expansion, contraction, and revision.
>> Then I added a fourth operator of analogy.  As a brief summary
>> of the four operators, see Figure 4 of the following paper:
>>
>>    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/dynonto.htm
>>    A Dynamic Theory of Ontology
>>
>> All possible operations for transforming or relating any two
>> theories can be defined as combinations of those four operators.
>> Actually, you only need three operators, since revision can be
>> defined as a sequence of contractions and expansions.  Analogy
>> is the operator you can use for representation and interpretation.
>>
>> You can explain all methods of theory revision, learning,
>> discovery, representation, and interpretation as methods
>> of walking or jumping through the lattice.  Expansion and
>> contraction are single-step operators used in walking, and
>> analogy introduces jumps.
>>
>> You can also use the lattice to explain the difference between
>> monotonic and nonmonotonic reasoning.  Classical deduction starts
>> with some subset of a theory (called the axioms) and derives any
>> or all of the propositions of the full theory.  All versions of
>> nonmonotonic reasoning explicitly or implicitly involve expansion
>> or contraction that walk through the lattice to a theory that is
>> different from the one you start with.  Analogy is a high-speed
>> method for relabeling predicates in order to convert (or relate)
>> one consistent theory to another.
>>
>> Finally, the lattice is the foundation for modularity.  Simple
>> modules are located in upper areas of the lattice, and consistent
>> combinations of modules are the infimum of the modules from which
>> they were derived.
>>
>> I am *not* claiming that I discovered everything that could be
>> discovered about relating theories.  And I am certainly not
>> claiming that I anticipated what you wrote in your book.
>>
>> The only point I'm making is that the lattice is a systematic
>> framework for showing how all the methods that have been invented
>> or could ever be invented are interrelated.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>    (06)

_________________________________________________________________
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)

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