I share Rich Copper's concerns.
To be frank, this project could be classified under "Academic Research
Illusion", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] owl2 and cycL/cycML (01)
> Hi Ian,
>
> I beg to differ. Since it seems you are thinking only in academic terms,
> you are missing the reality of how facts and rules are used by agents such
> as people. The facts and rules provide the basis over which
> theorem-proving
> algorithms work. The proof algorithms themselves are so well understood
> that they have become common everyday words among academics. But the
> value
> of these algorithms alone is so low that very few nonacademics are finding
> them useful.
>
> If you "delegated the task of checking the facts to a stupid/careless
> person" then it is quite likely that the facts and rules s/he asserted
> were
> in error. S/he can prove any theory by adjusting the evidence to fit it.
> So if "they told [us] that they weren't able to draw the conclusion", then
> the entire project is flawed, and there are little truthfully useful
> results
> to come out of it. The purpose of our work on this list should be on how
> to
> make the -uctions useful to humans, not just to machines.
>
> In the legal and financial world, where people use deduction, induction,
> and
> all the other tools of logic in a realistic world setting, the term "due
> diligence" is used to indicate that the fact seeker spent an "appropriate"
> amount of resources in discovering the facts, validating and verifying the
> evidence. Any legal discovery case can literally go on forever, but the
> judge will identify when all reasonable discovery issues have been
> illuminated for both plaintiff and defense. Discovery stops then, not
> when
> every fact has been placed into the puzzle of -uctions. MOST OFTEN, there
> are facts FOR and facts AGAINST any conclusion. That is because people
> use
> very subjective judgment, and are swayed by their own mental focus,
> including their own best interests. You can consider them
> "stupid/careless"
> people, but that would include all of us if the effects of self-interest
> are
> looked at. We misjudge the facts all the time because we want a specific
> outcome.
>
> In highly significant real world cases, such as the JFK assassination
> beloved by reporters and conspiracy theorists, people are still
> "discovering
> facts" they say are relevant, even though the official case has been
> closed
> for over forty years.
>
> The point is, when a "stupid/careless person" gets facts and rules wrong,
> s/he can prove or disprove anything at all. The point is to balance
> reasonableness of discovery with the most objectively reviewed evidence,
> and
> no more - Occam again. It's not which deduction algorithm that is so
> important - it's the factual basis and the rule accuracy that have to be
> dealt with now that deduction methods are so well understood in the
> academic
> community.
>
> That is why web sites still sell evidentiary content and not reasoning for
> the most part. Blogs and other opinion sites sell a specific reasoning
> story, but have little sway with the public - they're more entertaining
> than
> truthful.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 11:11 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] owl2 and cycL/cycML
>
> Sorry, but you are missing the point.
>
> The point is that a given conclusion *can* be proven with the facts at our
> disposal, it's just that we delegated the task of checking the facts to a
> stupid/careless person, and they told as that they weren't able to draw
> the
> conclusion.
>
> Please let's not muddy the waters with this discussion of NAF -- it is
> really a red herring.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 2 Aug 2010, at 18:54, Rich Cooper wrote:
>
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> If the intent of the tool's designers is to mimic human perspectives on
>> knowledge and logic, then negation as failure is more human like, IMHO,
> than
>> any existing alternative. A person with no experience in an area
>> normally
>> is very skeptical of assertions that can't be proven within his/her
> database
>> of factual and structural knowledge, and reaches the same conclusion.
>> I'm
>> sure you've heard it said that you don't know what you don't know, so you
>> assume you know everything until proven otherwise.
>>
>> Another way to look at it is that, within the bounds of evidence, a judge
> or
>> juror has no basis for any conclusion that is not consistent with known,
>> demonstrated facts. It is always possible that other information will
>> surface in the future, but the rational deduction of the present moment
> has
>> to be based on known facts, not on missing information.
>>
>> One consequence of this result is that it is very hard to convince anyone
> of
>> a fact which has no familiarity, in specific or general terms, to them
>> personally. That is why attorneys and laws depend on known facts.
>>
>> -Rich
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Rich Cooper
>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:14 AM
>> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
>> Cc: Bernardo Cuenca Grau
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] owl2 and cycL/cycML
>>
>> It is even more tricky that this. The failure in "negation as failure"
>> doesn't mean failure of a given algorithm, it means not provably true.
> There
>> are many decidable logics with NAF. If we have an incomplete reasoner for
>> such a logic, we are *still* incorrect if we take failure to return
>> "True"
>> as being equivalent to "False", because the failure may simply be a
> symptom
>> of the incompleteness and nothing to do with NAF.
>>
>> Simple example: I am using a logic in which negation is interpreted as
> NAF.
>> I have a simple boolean theory in which negation isn't used and which
>> entails A(x). I ask if A(x) is entailed. My incomplete (for entailment)
>> reasoner answers "False". If I treat this as entailing that A(x) is not
>> entailed, then I am really incorrect -- nothing to do with NAF.
>>
>> In fact I think that we would be well advised to strike NAF from the
> record
>> -- it's really not helpful in this discussion :-)
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 Aug 2010, at 17:45, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regarding my claim that reasoners are typically used in a way that is
>> actually incorrect, to the best of my knowledge none of the incomplete
>> reasoners in widespread use in the ontology world even distinguish
>> "false"
>> from "don't know" -- whatever question you ask, they will return an
> answer.
>> Thus, in order to be correct, applications would have to treat *every*
>> "false" answer as "don't know". I don't know of any application that does
>> that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Put another way, it is not incorrect to treat "don't know" as "false",
>>> if "negation as failure" is a stated principle of the reasoning
>>> algorithm. We can state the 'negation as failure' principle generally
>>> as "if the assertion cannot be proved from the knowledge base, the
>>> assertion is taken to be false."
>>>
>>> Of course, "proved" means that the reasoning algorithm can derive a
>>> proof, which depends on the algorithm actually implemented in the
>>> engine. As Ian mentioned earlier, this kind of "proof" implies that the
>>> nature of the reasoning algorithm is, or incorporates, "model
>>> construction", which is typical of various kinds of logic programming
>>> engines, but there are many hybrid algorithms.
>>>
>>> -Ed
>>>
>>> --
>>> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
>>> National Institute of Standards & Technology
>>> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
>>> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
>>> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>>>
>>> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>>> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|