John (01)
The principal interpreter of the world to a computer is the human, either
directly as the input, or indirectly, through the definition of
discrimination criteria applied to sensed data (e.g. use *these* features to
identify a car number plate in an image) - at least until we develop fully
autonomous systems were even the system goals are set by the machine (cue
dystopian sci-fi). (02)
There is an engineering problem to ensure that when ontology terms
presented to the wetware they are correctly interpreted. In an enterprise, I
would assert that (03)
a) the terms used well understood by the people operating in that
enterprise AND
b) the terms exactly correspond to the decisions that are significant
to that enterprise (04)
Given this restriction, it is then possible to encode the enterprise
specific rules that can be used to define the terms. (05)
For example,
-"Technical Report" is a (formal) report on "technical matters"
authorised by a "group Leader" and a "Departmental Manager";
-"Technical memorandum" is a(n informal) report on "technical matters",
without any associated authorization. (06)
In this context, I would describe the semantics of a term through the forms
of life (business process) that the term evokes in the enterprise. (07)
The problem comes when the wetware uses the semiotics of a term rather than
the semantics. For example, in aircraft manufacturer ABC: (08)
Term Semiotics
Semantics
Manufactured part Wing, fuselage frame ABC has the
responsibility to certify part for the aircraft type
Bought-out part Avionics, engine Supplier has the
responsibility to certify part for the aircraft type
Standard Part Rivet, washer Parts are
pre-certified for any aircraft type (09)
The semantics of the terms are defined as the business process used to
procure them, and not by any physical characteristic of the part. (010)
When you assert "The rules expressed in those notations will have to make
the intended meanings explicit with the same level of precision as any
engineering discipline" in my view, this is not a matter of general
knowledge about the world, but of the recognisable constraints on "normal"
usage that an enterprise imposes. Relationships between enterprises can then
be tested by comparing ontologies. (011)
The restriction "enterprise" could be loosened to "any coherent linguistic
community". Loosening it further than that (e.g. to the web as a whole) will
be more challenging, and such usages are likely to be restricted by the
appetite for risk of the users (012)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
> Sowa
> Sent: 15 February 2010 13:32
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
>
> Dear Matthew and Pat,
>
> People interact successfully among themselves because they have
> background knowledge about the world and about one another.
> Computers don't have any such knowledge, unless it is encoded in some
> way that they can use. The purpose of the formal ontologies we have
> been discussing is to encode that information.
>
> PC>>> ... the meanings of the terms in the ontology do not depend solely
> >>> on the total sum of all the inferences derivable from the logic,
> but >>> on the **intended meanings**, which do or at least should
> control >>> the way the elements are used in applications.
>
> JFS>> If those intended meanings aren't in the specifications, they
> >> won't get into the machine code. And if the spec's aren't precise,
>>> different programmers will write incompatible codes, which won't >>
> be interoperable.
>
> MW> What you say is true for information systems that humans are not
> > part of. However, that is very few practical information systems.
> > For most information systems humans are an integral part.
>
> I agree.
>
> MW> For example [humans] enter data, they read reports, and on that
> > basis they make decisions (not just the computer). In that case > it
> matters if the humans decide that a field that the programmer > decided
> should be a name, would actually be used for a description > or the
> price of something or whatever.
>
> I agree that computers have been successfully interacting with people
> for half a century without any kind of formal ontology -- in fact
> without any knowledge of any kind about the meaning of the data.
> The only knowledge about the data is in heads of the people who design,
> implement, and use the computers.
>
> One computer displays a form with fields labeled 'name' or 'price',
> accepts some input data, and stores the data in fields of a database
> that some programmer has labeled 'name' or 'price'. Another computer
> combines that data with other data and sends it to a printer or a
> computer display. None of the computers have the slightest knowledge,
> explicit or implicit, about the meaning of the data.
>
> Unfortunately, different people may use the same or similar knowledge in
> incompatible ways. Database developers noticed that problem in the mid
> 1970s, and they started projects to develop standards for a "conceptual
> schema" that would encode the background knowledge.
> For over 30 years, they have been discussing exactly the same issues we
> have been debating in ontolog forum and the SUO email list.
>
> We have two options:
>
> 1. Admit that encoding background knowledge in computer systems
> is a futile exercise and continue with the programming
> practices that have evolved over the past half century.
>
> 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.
>
> John (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)
|