John F. Sowa wrote:
> 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. (01)
To encode ALL that background knowledge is the Cyc vision. (02)
My understanding of the use of the term "FO" in this forum has been to
mean "foundational ontology", not "formal ontology". (03)
A computer can process the rules assigned in a foundational ontology,
formally expressed, but the meanings for most terms could not be formally
grounded in the ones and zeros that a digital computer works with. Much
of mathematics could be grounded, absolute time could be defined in terms
of data received from an atomic clock on the internet (if the machine is
connected) and duration could be deifined based on such absolute time (or
on specific machines, a second's duration could be defined in terms of the
duration of processor cycles). (04)
> 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. (05)
> 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. (06)
These are two different issues. The specs can be precisely defined
(to some level of accuracy) in a natural language. It is up to the
programmers, not the computer, to interpret the specs so that they
don't write incompatible code. (07)
> 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. (08)
> I agree. (09)
> 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 ... (010)
> 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. (011)
> ... (012)
> 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. (013)
> We have two options: (014)
> 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. (015)
> 2. Develop formal ontologies that enable computer systems to
> reason with and about the "intended meaning" of the data
> they receive from humans. (016)
> 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.) (017)
> The rules expressed in those notations will have to make the intended
> meanings explicit (018)
Here is where I part company with John. The rules and terms (relations,
types, and individuals) would not be grounded in mathematics or logic.
Reasoning via the rules based on the terms and statements in a knowledge
base WOULD be based on logic. (019)
> with the same level of precision as any engineering discipline -- i.e.,
> the precision and techniques used in writing mathematical formulas. (020)
The referent for many terms would have to be defined in NL. And the
boundary conditions for terms would be hard to define. Can we formally
define a cat? Certainly one could formally define a chair, but each
ontology to be mapped to would probably have a different definition. It
might be nice to describe fuzzy boundaries for concepts. (021)
-- doug (022)
> 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
>
>
> (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (025)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
|