Darn those SMEs, they just won’t
take these amazing tools even if you give them to the SMEs and make them use
them right! I wonder if there is ANY domain oriented reason why they don’t
follow the approved methods. Could it be they know something? Naaah.
Curiously,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali Hashemi
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 11:56
AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Using
controlled natural languages for ontology
Your slides are useful
and do touch on many of the same points, I value them as a resource. And yes,
of course a KE ought have working knowledge of the field with a strong dose of
humility and awareness of their limitations in a complete/expert understanding
of the domain - I believe Ed has also stressed this point.
> There is a large untapped, but potentially more useful (and
> at worst
complementary) avenue of capturing SME knowledge via
> examples (i.e. Tarski models rendered in SME readable form).
The most critical part of the ontology is deciding on an
appropriate choice of objects, functions, and relations.
The language required to describe a Tarski-style model would
use exactly the same vocabulary for those items as the language
for describing the logical combinations.
The only difference is in the use of Boolean operators and
quantifiers. The issue we're debating is whether we should
replace 'and', 'or', 'not', 'if', 'every' and 'some' with
special symbols. To answer that, please look at Naproche.
While I appreciate what you are saying here, I believe it is missing
the point.
What I was trying to bring attention to is that a lot of work is being
focused on getting the SME to express their intuitions directly in the logical
language (whatever its syntax).
Sometimes (nay,
often?), the intuitions that might be necessary for the
axiomatization of a particular domain are not easily accessible - whatever the
syntax - to the SME.
Take for instance the notion of orthocomplementation or
pseudocomplementation, an integral part of many a mereotopology (i.e. http://stl.mie.utoronto.ca/publications/RT-journal.pdf ).
Yet expressing either concept, is cumbersome to a lay person, or even someone
who has "reading capability" of the logic. Moreover, figuring out
that these two notions are important for mereotopology might not even be
obvious without a deep understanding and access to a large background of
mathematical knowledge!
However, one can, by analyzing the set of models in the extension of
the theory (which is after all, is what the SME is working with on a daily
basis - the models that satisfy the intensional axioms), we can determine that
these models satisfy orthocomplementation or pseudocomplementation.
What I am getting at is that there are many logical constructs or
axioms which are integral in the axiomatization / formalization process, which
just aren't necessarily intuitive to the SME, no matter how we render the
syntax. In contrast, these SME's are often quite intimately familiar with the
models that satisfy their desired axioms. Developing a translation from these
models to a complete diagram for various fields would go a long way in
capturing that elusive knowledge in the SME's head in a machine readable way.
I absolutely agree that the vocabulary of the functions, relations and
objects must be aligned; however their application in any representation of the model need not obviously reflect the underlying
axioms. CNL's and other approaches to making the language of logic more
accessible to SME's is indeed an important and integral part of gaining wider
acceptance and usage of ontologies. Unfortunately, it is only part of the
story, and misses a whole slew of cases where, no matter the syntax, some
concepts just aren't readily accessible to an SME with only a modicum or
intermediate level of training in knowledge representation.
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|