John:
The implications of your conclusion, whilst arguably valid, are nonetheless
chilling.
I'm happy that some automated system might *help* me model my world (even
extensively), but I will *always* want the final say. Decades of AI failures
and false dawns demonstrate that we should never hand control over to fully
automated systems. (01)
Best regards,
Peter (02)
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant (03)
Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
www.peterfbrown.com
@pensivepeter
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA (04)
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
| bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
| Sent: Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:06
| To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
| Ontology Technical Standard
|
| Todd, Chris, Michael, and Matthew,
|
| TJS:
| > To all concerned or interested the SOA ontology put forth by the Open
| > Group is rubbish for many reasons.
|
| CM:
| > it seems like there are some pretty obvious instance/subclass
confusions.
|
| MG:
| > this example is not so clear-cut, since there it is possible to
| > interpret these statements within a process ontology such as PSL:
|
| MW:
| > Then the best you can say is that the example is ambiguous.
| > Still not good.
|
| CM:
| > ... given the background ontology, it was a mistake for them to
| > classify those objects as instances of TASK rather than as subclasses
| > thereof.
|
| All these comments illustrate some points that field linguists and
lexicographers
| learned many, many decades ago:
|
| 1. People can use their native language much more accurately
| than they can describe it.
|
| 2. But even educated speakers make gross errors when they try
| to explain points of grammar. Their metalevel comments about
| their own language are extremely unreliable.
|
| 3. Therefore, the data chosen for language analysis should be
| taken from examples that people speak or write for the
| purpose of communicating with other people -- *not* from
| their claims about their "intuition".
|
| These are reasons why knowledge acquisition should be based on automated
or
| semi-automated tools. Well designed software is far more capable of
making
| consistent and reliable choices than the overwhelming majority of people
who
| learned some so called "ontology language".
|
| 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
| (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|