ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural Languages

To: Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:17:42 -0500
Message-id: <E6CFC912-5D9A-4140-B231-7432B77458C0@xxxxxxx>
I am finding this whole thread rather bewildering. The original suggestion, as 
I understand it, was that it might be a good idea to invent an ontology 
focussed on the notion of self-interest. To my mind, this suggestion 
immediately invites several questions.     (01)

1. Why? That is, why this notion rather than some other folk-psychological 
notion, such as, say, schadenfreude or anger or happiness or...? Is it because 
someone feels that self-interest is of central importance in human affairs? 
What assumptions underlie this (or whatever other relevant) intuition of this 
notion's importance? The answer to this question might iluminate that of the 
next question.    (02)

 2. This phrase 'self-interest' seems underspecified. It can be understood in 
many ways: as a social/political force in human affairs; as a pyschological 
hypothesis about human cognition; as a moral factor; and so on. Each of these 
relates the phrase to a different context of related notions, and probably will 
turn out to be a slightly differnt idea as a result. What context was in mind 
when the ontology was originally suggested? Where should we look to see what 
kind of other concepts would be in the proposed ontology?    (03)

Pat    (04)


On Aug 31, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:    (05)

> Dear David,
> 
> Comments below,
> 
> -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 David Eddy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:34 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural Languages
> 
> Rich -
> 
> On 2011-08-31, at 4:30 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> 
> > Why DON'T huge hunks of deduced, induced, abduced
> 
> > and reduced knowledge suffice?  What is still
> 
> > lacking?  Why don't gobs of special purpose
> 
> > functionality, coupled with gobs of knowledge, do
> 
> > the trick?
> 
> 
> #1 - much of life isn't subject to mathematical logic (e.g. much of 
> 
> business activity is highly illogical)    (06)

> 
> 
> True; some AI luminaries called what business execs do "satisficing" instead 
>of optimizing.  But businesses use risk models and SWOT analyses to determine 
>their position in a market and relative risk positions.  But note that more 
>and more of business activity is based on models and analysis of historical 
>data.  For example, hedge funds are used to insure risky litigation in the 
>patent industry so that the downside isn't as down as it used to be. 
> 
> 
> #2 - life (particularly as expressed with language) is a constantly moving 
>target, based on a poorly defined "foundation."
> 
> 
> Boy isn't that the truth!  We change our minds, our strategies, our knowledge 
>bases and our results on a daily basis.  Over the long run, we often can't 
>recognize our past experiences the change is so great. 
> 
> 
> I express this in the following context...
> 
> A house can certainly be described as a "system" (or collection of systems... 
>heating, plumbing, walls, electrical, etc.).  But once it's built it stays as 
>a house ALWAYS.  It will never be a boat (unless you live in Vermont or 
>upstate New York), an airplane or a car.
> 
> 
> But houses sometimes get remodeled into business offices, and otherwise 
>modified as the character of the location changes.  Still, most houses stay 
>houses until razed, even though they get remodeled. 
> 
> 
> Information systems typically are poorly/ambiguously defined & constantly 
>evolving.
> 
> Plus the language used to describe information systems (software) is all over 
>the place & very rarely formally expressed.
> 
> Like it or not, believe it or not, Agile or not, most systems used in 
>organizations go through some sort of systems development life cycle...
> 
> 1 - requirements
> 
> 2 - analysis
> 
> 3 - design
> 
> 4 - coding
> 
> 5 - implementation
> 
> 6 - maintenance
> 
> At each one of these steps people with different views of the world, with 
>different life experiences & with different use of language get to put their 
>oar in the water.  Then you get to mix in professional 
> 
> jealousies (requirements folks CERTAINLY do NOT speak/write/think the same 
>language as programmers) & the dynamics of mergers & acquisitions.
> 
> 
> True enough; each discipline has its own tribe of adherents (BA, SA, SE, Mgr 
>…) and each has its own collective viewpoint about how things OUGHT to be; it 
>is nearly always something another tribe is NOT doing, to that tribe's 
>discomfort and hysteria.  The amazing thing is that ultimately MOST software 
>developments are somewhat successful; otherwise they would stop getting funded 
>by those satisficing business execs. 
> 
> 
> Personally I believe the good news is that the business thingys are not all 
>that numerous.  I think there's some room to argue—definitely ARGUE—that 
>organizations run on between 1500 & 6000 concepts.  But then it gets ugly 
>since there are many, many, many synonyms for core concepts.  Remember my oft 
>repeated: in 1980 a life insurance company found in its software systems 70 
>different names for the "policy number" concept.
> 
> 
> True.  In my patent spec, I described how even the supposedly simple concept 
>of a Boolean value can be represented in many different ways - 0/1, 1/2, T/F, 
>Y/N, checkboxes, radio buttons …
> 
> But the 1500 to 6000 number still seems small to me, given the complexities 
>of doing business in current regulatory and tax environments.  Calling an 
>expenditure by the wrong category name can be very lossy if it doesn't get 
>communicated purposefully to the tax accountant for depreciation, credits, 
>etc. 
> 
> 
> I fully acknowledge that this is not something that will help translate 
>Arabic to English & pluck shifting political sentiments out of the ether.
> 
> BUT... it will help you modify your business applications faster & more 
>accurately.
> 
> Take your pick as to which is more practical & useful.
> 
> 
> History (at least mine) shows that people look for ways to disagree on 
>everything, and terminology is only one aspect of it.  BAs emphasize user 
>experience more than correctness; SysEs emphasize architecture over contents; 
>SEs emphasize design over purpose; Mgrs emphasize turf over profitability…
> 
> Using the wrong word gets you into trouble in that environment, even if it 
>is, in a minimal vocabulary, the correct concept.  Words have emotive force as 
>well as communicative value. 
> 
> 
> ___________________
> 
> David Eddy
> 
> 
> But I would still like to find ways to shrink the diversity of terms; I just 
>don’t think it will shrink to that small a number.  A thesaurus, by expression 
>instead of by word or concept, might be a better goal than a minimalist number 
>of utterances. 
> 
> -Rich
> 
>  
>  
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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    (07)

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (08)






_________________________________________________________________
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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>