Patrick, (01)
I think we may be agreeing then (I hope so). (02)
> The limitation of ontology work to logic. They are not co-extensive.
> Ontology being a much broader field than logic. (03)
I would agree, as I said earlier.
> > > > 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. (04)
My original comment below was intended to make a similar point.
> > > > > > Though of course one can argue about the details of the
> > > > > > ontological curriculum. (05)
I hope you don't have problems with Chris's original point that there is a
pervasive and mistaken idea that building quality ontologies doesn't require
any sort of level of ontological awareness, just a clear head, a bit of common
sense, and a copy of Protégé. (ChrisM hope you don't think my edits have
obscured your message.) (06)
Hope you have a good day too. (07)
Chris (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 December 2010 15:07
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
> Ontology Technical Standard
>
> Chris,
>
> On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 14:54 +0000, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > I think you are trying to make a suggestion that people are ontologically
> aware into one that a particular ontology should be used.
> >
> > Your extract seems to be making the same point as ChrisM original mail,
> that people need to be ontologically aware - in this case aware of their
> ontological commitments.
> > This seems to imply that you think ontological awareness is a good thing.
> > And isn't training one way to make them aware?
> >
>
> I understand ChrisM's position that ontological work is necessarily tied to
> logic.
>
> I think there are workable ontologies that may violate any number of logical
> constraints, but they suit the purposes at hand.
>
> > So I am not really sure what you disagree with.
> >
>
> The limitation of ontology work to logic. They are not co-extensive.
> Ontology being a much broader field than logic.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 24 December 2010 14:09
> > > To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: '[ontolog-forum]'
> > > Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA:
> > > The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You capture the issue with "...had the requisite training in the right
> areas."
> > >
> > > That is presuming a particular approach as the "correct" one from
> > > the outset.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is only a "mistake" from a certain point of view. It may be an
> > > unnecessary distinction from another point of view.
> > >
> > > You prove my point with "...a confusion about what things actually
> > > exist in the real world...." which is certainly a point of view issue.
> > >
> > > > This seems to me a separate issue from whether formal logic should
> > > > be
> > > made a requirement for standards.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not really. This is a marketing issue that operates under the guise
> > > of "..the real world..." sort of arguments.
> > >
> > > One that seeks to market a particular method of modeling as the
> "correct"
> > > one.
> > >
> > > > PD> there isn't some abstract requirement that all modeling
> > > > PD> projects
> > > conform to formal logic.
> > > > Agreed - and very few do at the moment.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Consider an earlier statement on the use of logic for knowledge
> > > representation:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > What is Knowledge Representation? by Randall Davis, Howward Shrobe,
> > > and Peter Szolovits
> > >
> > >
> > > > Have a good Xmas.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And you as well!
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|