[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:59:49 -0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <1096.>
Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> ...
> Pat C: 'Perhaps you could provide more detail for your alternative method
>> of
>> achieving general accurate semantic interoperability?  The sentence above
>> conjures up nothing concrete in my imagination.  How does one "implement
>> interoperability based on overlaps between sets [of observations]"???'    (01)

> Actually, what I am proposing ... won't be a theory
> at all, not a single one. What I think can be the objective arbiter
> are *observations* about the real world. The only trick is we must
> accept these same observations can lead to different, contradictory,
> theories.    (02)

> We can keep mathematics. Mathematics just becomes another (ultimately
> contradictory) interpretation of real-world observations.    (03)

Mathematics can be applied to real-world observations.  Features of the
real world can be mapped to symbols that can be operated on mathematically;
and mathematical operations can be correlated with real-world processes.
If the correlations are reasonable, then mathematical operations can yield
new information about the real world objects.    (04)

I don't see this as a mathematical interpretation of the observations,
but a mathematical modeling of the observations, processing of the model,
and interpretation of the result of the processing back to the real world.    (05)

> On one level, to provide something concrete to relate the discussion
> to, you can think of what I am proposing as case-based reasoning.
> There are differences with the way case-based reasoning is usually
> practiced today. We would not assume a finite, non-contradictory
> solution set for a start. But as an initial intuition for how such a
> model would work, case-based reasoning gives you some idea.    (06)

This sounds good.    (07)

> It may be moot anyway, because John's "catch-all" project may be
> sufficiently broad to resolve most of the disputes of interest to
> Ontolog members.    (08)

It seems to allow for your proposals as well.    (09)

> If the entire list is willing to get behind a project which takes as
> its grounding principle that there is no single complete theory, that
> may be the best we can hope for at this stage, and I would like to
> encourage that.    (010)

I am finding a lot of agreement with this.  I hope we can all support
John's proposal.    (011)

-- doug foxvog    (012)

> ...
> -Rob    (013)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (014)

"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.
=============================================================    (015)

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    (016)

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