Chris, (01)
On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 13:15 +0000, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> I was not seeing that the issue was with whether the standard had any
>particular conformance requirements.
> It was more about whether the individuals drafting it had the requisite
>training in the right areas.
> (02)
You capture the issue with "...had the requisite training in the right
areas." (03)
That is presuming a particular approach as the "correct" one from the
outset. (04)
> The original issue was that there was a confusion between classes
>(types/universals) and individuals (elements/particulars).
> This seems to me a confusion about what things actually exist in the real
>world - in the domain being modelled - and is unhealthy.
> If people had the right training they would be much less likely to make this
>kind of mistake.
> (05)
That is only a "mistake" from a certain point of view. It may be an
unnecessary distinction from another point of view. (06)
You prove my point with "...a confusion about what things actually exist
in the real world...." which is certainly a point of view issue. (07)
> This seems to me a separate issue from whether formal logic should be made a
>requirement for standards.
> (08)
Not really. This is a marketing issue that operates under the guise of
"..the real world..." sort of arguments. (09)
One that seeks to market a particular method of modeling as the
"correct" one. (010)
> PD> there isn't some abstract requirement that all modeling projects conform
>to formal logic.
> Agreed - and very few do at the moment. (011)
> Also, I would argue (and I think ChrisM does below as well) that having
>merely a good grounding in formal logic by itself is insufficient to build up
>the competence to avoid these kinds of errors - hence ChrisM's long list.
> (012)
Consider an earlier statement on the use of logic for knowledge representation: (013)
> Logic, rules, frames, and so on, embody
> a viewpoint on the kinds of things that are
> important in the world. Logic, for example,
> involves a (fairly minimal) commitment to
> viewing the world in terms of individual enti-
> ties and relations between them. Rule-based
> systems view the world in terms of attribute-
> object-value triples and the rules of plausible
> inference that connect them, while frames
> have us thinking in terms of prototypical
> objects.
> Thus, each of these representation tech-
> nologies supplies its own view of what is
> important to attend to, and each suggests,
> conversely, that anything not easily seen in
> these terms may be ignored. This suggestion
> is, of course, not guaranteed to be correct
> because anything ignored can later prove to
> be relevant. But the task is hopeless in princi-
> ple—every representation ignores something
> about the world; hence, the best we can do is
> start with a good guess. The existing repre-
> sentation technologies supply one set of
> guesses about what to attend to and what to
> ignore. Thus, selecting any of them involves a
> degree of ontological commitment: The selec-
> tion will have a significant impact on our per-
> ception of, and approach to, the task and on
> our perception of the world being modeled. (014)
What is Knowledge Representation? by Randall Davis, Howward Shrobe, and
Peter Szolovits (015)
> Have a good Xmas.
> (016)
And you as well! (017)
Patrick (018)
> Chris
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 24 December 2010 12:34
> > To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
> > Ontology Technical Standard
> >
> > -1.
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > The question is whether SOA or any other modeling effort has conformance
> > to the dictates of formal logic as a requirement?
> >
> > If not, and the modeling effort meets the needs of its community, I don't
>see
> > a problem.
> >
> > Or to put it differently, there isn't some abstract requirement that all
> > modeling projects conform to formal logic. Some will, some won't, most will
> > fall somewhere in between.
> >
> > Hope you are having a great holiday season!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 00:07 +0000, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Though of course one can argue about the details of the ontological
> > > curriculum.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
> > > > Sent: 23 December 2010 19:36
> > > > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA:
> > > > The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Research wrote:
> > > > > Going back to the top of this thread for a moment:
> > > > > - Todd states that the SOA Ontology from the Open Group "is
> > > > > rubbish for many reasons" but that "there is some value in this work".
> > > > > - I asked for some justification to the initial statement.
> > > > > - a whole series of comments are posted regarding modelling errors
> > > > > and shortcomings...
> > > > > On the thread, we have followed a typical Ontolog Forum pattern of
> > > > > spiralling away from the initial point and exploring fine
> > > > > modelling points - all good in its own way, and a reflection of
> > > > > the breadth of opinion and ideas of the group, which is great.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, *my* point wasn't really to comment on a modeling error or
> > > > explore fine modeling points, although I probably obscured the point
> > > > by being explicit about the details. My actual point was that large,
> > > > well- publicized and (in some cases) well-funded ontologies are
> > > > being
> > > constructed
> > > > by folks who are still confused about the most elementary points of
> > > > logic and knowledge representation -- notably, in this case, the
> > > > difference between instance and subclass, a confusion the KR
> > > > community straightened out almost as soon as it cropped up over 35
> > > > years ago. For someone tasked with constructing an ontology to be
> > > > confused about it in this day and age
> > > is
> > > > like an engineer tasked with building a bridge to be confused about,
> > > > say,
> > > the
> > > > difference between force and torque.
> > > >
> > > > I think there is still a pretty pervasive idea (despite regular
> > > > rejoinders
> > > from
> > > > the likes of John Sowa, Michael Grüninger, Pat Hayes, Leo Obrst,
> > > > etc) that building quality ontologies doesn't require any sort of
> > > > special technical training, just a clear head, a bit of common
> > > > sense, and a copy of Protege
> > > (an
> > > > excellent and useful tool, let me hasten to add). To the contrary,
> > > > at a minimum, a competent, well-educated ontological engineer must
> > > > have a mastery of first-order logic and related systems like modal
> > > > logic (of
> > > which
> > > > description logic can be considered a variety) as well as a deep
> > > familiarity
> > > > with the history of knowledge representation and KR systems. Broad
> > > > knowledge of the history of philosophy as well as contemporary
> > > > metaphysics and philosophy of language would not only sharpen
> > > > analytical skills and provide a rich source of ontological
> > > > exploration to draw upon, but would also prevent ontological
> > > > engineers from wasting time reinventing the wheel (typically with an
> > inferior design).
> > > >
> > > > Until ontological engineers, like engineers of every other other
> > > > stripe,
> > > can be
> > > > assumed to have a well-defined baseline of knowledge and a basic
> > > > technical skills, an endless repetition of elementary modeling
> > > > errors and, consequently, a stream of (at best) unreliable and (at
> > > > worst) incoherent ontologies are to be expected, and skepticism
> > > > about the usefulness of ontologies will (justifiably) persist. We
> > > > trust every new bridge that is
> > > built to
> > > > hold us up (in part) because of the knowledge and skill of the
> > > > engineers
> > > who
> > > > designed it; sound bridges that perform their function reliably are
> > > > the
> > > norm,
> > > > not the exception. Why should it be any different for ontologies?
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > >
>
> (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|