Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic patterns and logic expression

[Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the examples Jim.

Dear Doug,

Yes mathematical ontologies have already been develpoed and I'm not suggesting that we reinvent them. What we've done is to simply start porting them into CLIF notation. :D There's already a lot of work done in connecting establishing connections between mathematical theories, we can reuse most of that, most of that work consists of translating the notation...


While math might arguably be viewed as "top-down," applying mathematical theories to real world problems is certainly not.

To illustrate, in this approach, one isn't saying "these are your choices for time that you pick and extend from an upper ontology"; rather one is saying, "given the language you are using to describe your intuitions, these are useful constructs with well known properties, let's see which of them your intuition of time corresponds to." Ultimately, it's complementary to the standard Upper Ontology approach, not competitive.


I'm not sure if it is what Jim meant when using semantic patterns, but in providing these "low-level patterns" one remains agnostic as to how they relate to the real world, that's up to the ontologist / domain modeler aided perhaps by some clever algorithms / tools. :P. So a catalog of these semantic patterns might be these ontologies organized into hierarchies for various conceptual domains.


And yes, it would be wonderful to be able to reuse Cyc's theories, but alas they're walled up...

Cheers,
Ali

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 "Ali Hashemi" <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm a bit embarrassed to have to add this qualification, but the
> "criticism"
> i'm anticipating and responding to here seems to pop-up like clockwork on
> this forum. So before people jump on my statement of :

>> "...the field of mathematics has already formalized and characterized a
>> lot
>> of the useful statements we can make in a formal language such as FOL.
>> So it
>> suggested to us to start inputting ontologies for these well understood
>> theories and then see how they were being reused in other fields."

Such ontologies have been written.  Why re-invent this wheel?

> ... They reflect a

> large category of theories that are very well developed and understood
> with
> a huge base of support and applications pretty much everywhere, so it
> seems
> like a great (or if you like, partial) starting point for a family of
> interlingua ontologies in a repository.

A math ontology would certainly be a useful part of an FO.

> (Mathematical theories certainly have far more widespread applications,
> adoption, integration and practical in-use experience than OpenCyc :P.

Research Cyc has the theories.  OpenCyc merely has the concepts.  It would
be nice if Cycorp would release their encoding of such theories .

> <---

> note.. this statement isn't meant to imply that OpenCyc shouldn't be
> included, just to point out that there we already are using a lot of the
> same basic structures again and again, except, instead of "top-down
> upperontologies" it's bottom-up logical foundations :D:D)

I thought mathematics was defined in a top-down fashion. 8)#

-- doug

> Cheers,
> Ali
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Ali Hashemi <

> ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx <ali.hashemi%2Bontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>>

> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jim.
>>
>> Would it be possible for you to share the things you refer to here:
>>
>>
>> "I have found a very few things that I had trouble expressing in FOL,
>> and
>> they were not very important. "
>>
>> I don't think anyone has nailed down quite what the phrase "semantic
>> pattern" means. I've employed the term logical structure, which
>> corresponds
>> to recurring sets of axioms that cut across domains. This _may_ be
>> similar
>> to what you're looking for.
>>
>> My general impression is that there is no _a priori_ method in
>> determining
>> what these patterns are, since the number of axioms you could generate
>> in
>> FOL is infinite, and only a subset fit to our uses in the world.
>>
>> The approach employed in COLORE at uncovering these "semantic patterns"
>> (correct me if i've misinterpreted your intention) is to first and
>> foremost,
>> and i can't stress this enough...
>>
>> start writing axioms in FOL!
>>
>> Once we have these intuitions formalized, we can see if there are
>> recurring
>> patterns. As I alluded to in a previous note, we've also developed a
>> procedure which would seek out and determine relationships between
>> different
>> ontologies / modules. If many, disparate ontologies seem to be using the
>> same sets of logical axioms (with differing labels), then perhaps they
>> constitute a "semantic pattern."
>>
>> Another element of our approach is that the field of mathematics has
>> already formalized and characterized a lot of the useful statements we
>> can
>> make in a formal language such as FOL. So it suggested to us to start
>> inputting ontologies for these well understood theories and then see how
>> they were being reused in other fields. I'm writing another note to this
>> forum which will expand on interoperability given the expressiveness of
>> the
>> language.
>>
>> Lastly, from the DL perspective, there is wonderful work being done at
>> http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main_Page ; perhaps that is also
>> what you are referring to!
>>
>> Best,
>> Ali
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jim Rhyne <
>> jrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> I was making an inquiry, not a challenge.
>>> As a practical matter, since I am a technical consultant for hire, I do
>>> not
>>> always get to choose the formalism I work in, and I and the client have
>>> to
>>> live with the consequences.
>>> I have found a very few things that I had trouble expressing in FOL,
>>> and
>>> they were not very important. These could have been failures of
>>> creativity
>>> on my part. I put that in the note to see if others have had similar
>>> problems.
>>> Still, it would be interesting to me to have a catalog of "semantic
>>> patterns" (whatever those might be) and their _expression_ in FOL (or
>>> CLIF,
>>> ...). Do you agree with that?
>>> Thanks, Jim
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>>> Christopher
>>> Menzel
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:05 PM
>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic patterns and logic _expression_
>>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jim Rhyne wrote:
>>> > I frequently have to define a semantic pattern, but find that it
>>> cannot
>>> be
>>> expressed in the current versions of DL, or OWL Full, or in FOL.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I don't believe you. :-)  Can you give an example of a
>>> semantic
>>> pattern you can't express in FOL?  (You are of course correct about the
>>> limitations of OWL-DL, but those exist by design in order to preserve
>>> decidability.)
>>>
>>> Chris Menzel
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
>>
>
>
>
> --
> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

=============================================================
doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org

"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.
=============================================================

_________________________________________________________________
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

-- 
(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,., 
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)