If you do more of the warning on the forum, you will get earlier support
or some good arguments as to why the topic is right for the audience.
It will also serve as guide to other who might be thinking or something
interesting but are not sure if it can be discussed. (01)
I would not be to quick to identify or attribute the off-topic
conversation to individuals since it often takes more than one to tango. (02)
Ron (03)
Peter Yim wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>> [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.
>>
>
> [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.
>
> Thanks & regard. =ppy
> --
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
>> ----- 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|