Once more a message of more than 10 lines. (01)
Can you guys actually assert that you are in the process of reaching a
consensus on this or are we just working our way through year 2 of the SOS. (02)
I withdraw my complaint if either side can provide an example of where
this discussion has changed their view of the universe. (03)
Perhaps if you started to work on a joint document on the way to move
forward, we might start making progress. (04)
Ron (05)
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> John,
> None of the factors you mention is direct evidence against the utility of
> the FO. They can be viewed at best as analogical evidence, in the same way
> that the Longman defining vocabulary, the Chinese character system, or
> AMESLAN can be viewed as analogical evidence *for* the semantic primitives.
> And I think the linguistic analogies I use are a lot closer than the others
> you cite. And as for the senses for Longman defining words, I have gone
> over this several times: Guo's work shows that fewer than 2 senses per word
> are used in the definitions (on average), and this is consistent with the
> recognition of "defining words so that anyone can understand the
> definitions" as one of the "Language Games" that force the use of only the
> most common and well-understood senses. But *direct* evidence can only be
> obtained by testing the actual process of creating an FO and testing it
> directly for its ability to support general semantic interoperability.
>
> Funny thing you should mention Leibniz: he was the one who proposed
> creation of a "characteristica universalis", a set of symbols in which
> concepts would be precisely represented by symbols so that precise reasoning
> can be done. I will quote from my handy "Leibniz Selections" by Wiener:
> [Leibniz: from 'Preface to the General Science' (1677)]: <quote>Whence it
> is manifest that if we could find characters or signs appropriate for
> expressing all our thoughts as definitely and as exactly as arithmetic
> expresses numbers or geometric analysis expresses lines, we could in all
> subjects <it>insofar as they are amenable to reasoning</it> accomplish what
> is done in arithmetic and geometry.
> For all inquiries which depend on reasoning would be performed by the
> transposition of characters and by a kind of calculus, which would
> immediately facilitate the discovery of beautiful results. For we should
> not have to break our heads as much as is necessary today, and yet we should
> be sure of accomplishing everything the given facts allow.
> Moreover we should be able to convince the world what we should have
> found or concluded, since it would be easy to verify the calculation either
> by doing it over or by trying tests similar to that of casting our nines in
> arithmetic. And if someone should doubt my results, I should say to him:
> "Let us calculate, Sir," and thus by taking to pen and ink, we should soon
> settle the question.
> I still add: <it>in so far as the reasoning allows on the given
> facts</it>. For although certain experiments are always necessary to serve
> as a basis for reasoning, nevertheless, once these experiments are given we
> should derive from them everything that anyone at all could possibly derive
> . . .</quote>
>
> I don't doubt that Leibniz would also say that ' only an infinite being
> such as God could take all possible details into account.", and I would say
> exactly the same thing. That is quite different from saying that one can
> reason accurately with the knowledge one does have, and communicate it
> accurately to other reasoners. Both Leibniz and I believe that accurate
> reasoning is possible for the broad range of topics of interest to people,
> based on symbols whose meanings are precisely specified, and we both know
> that no representation of the real world can be fully complete. It just has
> to be complete enough for our practical purposes. There is a difference -
> Leibniz seemed to think that people could perform these logical calculations
> but I don't - I think that only computers will be able to handle the long
> chains of inference that are sometimes required and keep the meanings of all
> symbols straight (in a practical amount of time). We don't have access to
> the detailed neural structures that people use, but we do have access to the
> detailed structures that computers use. I am suggesting that we take
> advantage of our knowledge of the details of *computer* reasoning to
> accomplish what Leibniz could not with the tools available to him back then.
>
> I think it is revealing that you quote Leibniz to suggest that he
> believes something he manifestly does not believe. This indicates to me
> that you are really, really stretching to find something, anything that you
> can cite as "evidence" against the FO principle. What it does is reinforce
> my conviction that there is no meaningful evidence against the FO, just some
> gut feelings on the part of some individuals.
>
> As for: [JS]: > The claim that an FO must be perfect at release 1.0 is just
>
>> one more proof that it is a hopelessly unrealistic fantasy.
>>
>>
> That is not my claim, and I disagree that it must be perfect in order to
> perform vastly better than alternative methods to achieve interoperability.
> You could make the same argument against mapping ontologies.
>
> You keep citing what has been done in the past. It has been done that
> way precisely because there has not been any FO and there was therefore no
> alternative. The potential for creating an FO has only recently (in the
> past 15 years) become realistic, and in that time no effort of the kind I
> have suggested has been undertaken. It's time to try the most direct route
> to solve the general problem.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:03 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping
>>
>> Pat and Sean,
>>
>> PC> PatH thinks that general accurate semantic interoperability
>> > is a "fantasy"[[PC]] and not worth attempting. I could not find
>> > any technical arguments for this position.
>>
>> If you want technical arguments, consider the following:
>>
>> 1. Philosophy. Leibniz observed that everything in the universe
>> affects everything else. He said that only an infinite being
>> such as God could take all possible details into account.
>> Since then, Kant, Wittgenstein, and many others have extended
>> and refined those arguments with abundant evidence.
>>
>> 2. Science and engineering. Every branch of science searches
>> for the most general fundamental principles. But the general
>> principles are so difficult to apply to specific examples that
>> engineers must always make approximations that are inconsistent
>> with those for other applications. Even physics, the most
>> precise of all the "hard" sciences, is a hodge-podge of
>> inconsistent approximations for each specialized subfield.
>>
>> 3. Computation. All the practical experience from 60+ years of
>> computer applications provide abundant evidence that computer
>> systems can interoperate very well on narrow applications, but
>> not on broad areas, except when the axioms are underspecified.
>> Example: names, dates, and points in time without any detailed
>> axioms about what those data items refer to.
>>
>> For more examples, see my paper, "The challenge of knowledge soup":
>>
>> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/challenge.pdf
>>
>> If you think that you can solve these problems, go ahead and try.
>> But you're making claims for which all the evidence is negative.
>> The word 'fantasy' is very appropriate.
>>
>> PC> PatH asserts that the meanings of elements in an ontology change
>> > whenever any new axiom is added. I don't dispute the fact that new
>> > inferences become available, but do not believe that this
>> mathematical
>> > notion of meaning is what is relevant to the practical ask of
>> building
>> > applications using ontologies.
>>
>> This point is not a property of mathematics, but of *every* method of
>> reasoning and definition. It applies equally well to the definitions
>> in your beloved Longman's dictionary. Just adding an axiom specializes
>> a term. It doesn't make radical changes. The more serious changes
>> are caused by the issues discussed above.
>>
>> PC> I assert that an important goal that can be advanced by aiming to
>> > recognize primitives is the stability of the Foundation Ontology.
>>
>> You can assert anything you want to. But it's "hope-based reasoning"
>> without a shred of evidence to support it.
>>
>> Just look at Longman's dictionary. I have a copy on my shelf, and I
>> checked the list of defining words. Each definition of those words
>> has a long list of different word senses, and each use of the word in
>> other definitions shifts and adapts those senses to the subject matter.
>> Such squishy "primitives" can be useful as rough guidelines, but not
>> for precise reasoning.
>>
>> PH> [General accurate semantic interoperability] is not a viable goal
>> > to seek. It is a fantasy, a dream.
>>
>> PC> Wow! PatH thinks that we will never be able to achieve a level of
>> > interoperability that will "let people rely on the inferences drawn
>> > by the computer"??!!
>>
>> That is not what he said. Computers have interoperated successfully
>> for over half a century. But they only interoperate on specialized
>> applications. That is exactly the same way that people interoperate.
>> People have different specialties. You can't replace a chef with
>> a carpenter or a plumber with an electrician.
>>
>> PC> I think that there is a community that wants the computers to be
>> > as reliable as people in making inferences from data acquired from
>> > remote systems...
>>
>> Computer systems do that very well for fields they are designed for.
>> You wouldn't hire a gardener to make an omelet or a chef to build
>> a house. Don't expect computers to surpass human flexibility for
>> a long, long time.
>>
>> PC> I am sure I haven't seen any demonstration of (or any evidence
>> > for) the level of hopelessness PatH asserts...
>>
>> Pat Hayes understands computer reasoning systems very, very well.
>> All the evidence supports his points, and there is not a single
>> shred of evidence to support your hope-based fantasies.
>>
>> SB>> ... if you don't get the foundational ontology right first time,
>> >> it is useless, because subsequent changes will invalidate all that
>> >> has gone before.
>>
>> PC> I do agree that it is advisable to make the FO as complete as
>> > possible at the earliest time, to avoid any changes and minimize
>> > the chance of reducing the accuracy of interoperability.
>>
>> No large system is ever "right first time." Look at all the patches
>> and revisions of every major computer program. IBM used the term
>> 'functionally stabilized' as a euphemism for systems that were
>> obsolete and no longer being maintained.
>>
>> The claim that an FO must be perfect at release 1.0 is just
>> one more proof that it is a hopelessly unrealistic fantasy.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|