Dear Phil, (01)
You asked "would it be fair to say ..X." (02)
and I respond "Yes or No, Depending, Maybe Both".
Which is my way of asking you to clarify X at a
higher definition please. (03)
Given the ease of access to the public - you can
log on as anonymous if you please - the
operational definition of terms which can
certainly be formalized, but why would we want to
do so all at once? (04)
The natural language usage has consistent clusters
of terminology that can be used to construct a
vocabulary for any class of patents you choose to
group. (05)
Patents describe "methods" in reasonably good
pseudocode in their claim tree. Patents also
describe "objects" or "apparatuses" that interact
with methods. So formalizing the structure of
meaning in whatever way you choose to account for
empirical evidence is fine with me. (06)
And I just like them. (07)
-Rich (08)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (09)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Phil Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:27 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Some Grand Challenge
proposal ironies (010)
Rich -- (011)
Would it be fair to say that part of the USPTO
"mess" -- exacerbated by
sheer volume of patents -- is that the meaning
expressed in the
processes of research, writing, and evaluation of
patents is not
formalized? One result appears to be that the huge
effort devoted to
those attempts at precise representation of terms,
precise
representation of functionality (including
representations of similar
functionality), and precise representation of
chains of influence in
natural language is wasted. There is much less
benefit to all subsequent
patent-seekers than there should be. (012)
IMHO, attempting to address the superabundance of
unstructured
information by using ontologies to federate
resources and improve access
to that information results in necessary but
marginal improvements. We
need to rethink the problem as a whole. There is,
in fact, much less
knowledge than information. We cannot ignore that
fact. (013)
Phil Murray (014)
Rich Cooper wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> You wrote below:
>
> If we want to move beyond discussions, we will
have to show how we can
> solve real problems. But that requires us to
analyze real problems.
>
> Where can we find some actual examples of those
messy problems that
> the owners would let us examine in public?
>
> The USPTO patent database provides access to
highly edited, debated,
> analyzed and valuable documents available to
every researcher for
> free. Access is free, documents are free,
search engine is free, and
> the format of the database comprises structured
columns (e.g., patent
> number, date filed, first named inventor, title,
and so forth.
> Unstructured text columns include the abstract
(limited to one
> paragraph), claim tree, figures, and description
among other columns
> of natural language usage in a pristine setting.
>
> -Rich
>
> John
>
> 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 John F. Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:58 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Some Grand
Challenge proposal ironies
>
> On 10/26/2011 5:03 PM, Cory Casanave wrote:
>
> > An area of interest to me and many of our
clients is solving
>
> > the information federation problem.
>
> That is indeed a very important problem. But
people have been talking
>
> about that problem since the 1970s. That
problem has many very thorny
>
> issues. But most of the so-called "use cases"
abstract away all the
>
> thorns by stating some little toy problems.
>
> > Federated data is inherently distributed,
uncoordinated, messy and
>
> > conflicting - yet there is value in leveraging
these disparate data
>
> > resources in a more unified way
>
> I agree. I realize that dealing with a full
scale problem that some
>
> large corporation really needs to solve is very
difficult. But you
>
> can't solve a problem that is "inherently
distributed, uncoordinated,
>
> messy and conflicting" by just looking at little
snippets.
>
> Unfortunately, anybody who has large amounts of
messy data will
>
> usually be reluctant to release it to public
scrutiny because it
>
> inevitably contains trade secrets or other
confidential material.
>
> > Discussions of this problem that involve, for
example, the OWL,
>
> > Linked Data and Common Logic communities
result in theoretical
>
> > and sometimes religious wars that can and have
frightened
>
> > potential consumers of the technology away.
>
> If we want to move beyond discussions, we will
have to show how
>
> we can solve real problems. But that requires
us to analyze
>
> real problems.
>
> Where can we find some actual examples of those
messy problems
>
> that the owners would let us examine in public?
>
> John
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
>
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
> (015)
--
--------------------- (016)
The Semantic Advantage
Turning Information into Assets
phil.murray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
401-247-7899 (017)
Blog: http://semanticadvantage.wordpress.com
Web site: http://www.semanticadvantage.com (018)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (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 (020)
|