Dear John, (01)
I suspect we don't really disagree but... (02)
> 2. Develop formal ontologies that enable computer systems to
> reason with and about the "intended meaning" of the data
> they receive from humans.
>
> Option #2 requires ontology encoded in some logic-based notation(s).
> (By logic-based notations, I include SQL, UML diagrams, and STEP as
> well as Common Logic, OWL, etc.) The rules expressed in those
> notations will have to make the intended meanings explicit with the
> same level of precision as any engineering discipline -- i.e., the
> precision and techniques used in writing mathematical formulas. (03)
MW: But no amount of logic can capture *all* the meaning of a term. There is
still the model theory and the intended interpretation that is beyond logic. (04)
MW: I will happily agree that capturing more of the meaning in the logic is
better than capturing less, since it increases the amount that can be
automated. It is just never possible to capture all of it. (05)
Regards (06)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (07)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|