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)
|