ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies are not algorithms (cont'd from theontolo

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:45:33 -0800
Message-id: <94F7C57709DB4BA29DD0C42F11833ACD@Gateway>
I agree with nearly everybody on this thread so
far.  It is very difficult (i.e. expensive) to use
human interpretation (how) to replace some thing
(what).  But there are conceptually filtered ways
to represent both the "how" and the "what"; to
treat them as a duality, somewhat like complex
numbers represent a duality of orthogonal signals.    (01)


There is a spectrum of kinds of databases.  But
the MetaData describing any logical database is
the same, at least in principle, in another
logical database.  In practice, one database can
be transformed to another database, on practically
any desired destination database, with manual
methods (the expensive kind).  Investments in
still further automating those manual actions with
software actions may be considered, at least in
principle.  In practice, there may also be an
engineering investment to be made to automate the
existing level of interchangeability into a
software utility.      (02)

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (03)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:11 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies are not
algorithms (cont'd from theontology-summit list)    (04)

... Please continue the subject conversation here,
Folks!
--    (05)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Fwd:  Ontologies
are not algorithms
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
<ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    (06)


I agree, but we had to give folks some knowledge.    (07)

This could be continued on the Ontolog Forum, more
generally.    (08)

Thanks,
Leo    (09)


-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Peter
Yim
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:42 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2012
Subject: [ontology-summit] Fwd: Ontologies are not
algorithms    (010)

Dear Leo, Jack and All,    (011)

I agree with Nicola's
(ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2012
-02/msg00007.html )    (012)

> [NG] ... In any way, this is not a topic to be
addressed in this summit.
> So, if people are still interested, I would
suggest them to move the discussion
> to the general Ontolog list.    (013)

... and am moving this conversation to the
[ontolog-forum] mailing list.    (014)

ALL: please pick up the conversation from there
(if folks would still
want to delve in the subject matter).    (015)

Thanks in advance. =ppy    (016)

p.s. if you are not subscribed to the
[ontolog-forum] list (i.e. not a
member of the Ontolog community,) please refer to
membership details
at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
--    (017)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontologies are not
algorithms
[was:   Ontolgizing rain & snow]
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
<ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    (018)


And by the way, rules do  the heavy-lifting in
reasoning over
ontologies and their instances. But rules (axioms,
inference rules,
consequence relations) are just as declarative as
ontologies, i.e.,
ontologies expressed in a logic, thereby being a
"logical theory", use
the declarative apparatus of logic.    (019)

So the transformation I spoke of are
transformations from one
declarative representation to another (mostly or
entirely) declarative
representation. Otherwise, humans do all the
programming imperatively,
looking only at the ontologies, conceptual models,
conceptual schemas
as "guidance". And from that process, there are
many algorithms that
could be created, perhaps infinitely many,
depending on the
space/complexity of the computation.    (020)

I hope this helps to clarify things.    (021)


Thanks,
Leo    (022)

-------------    (023)


From: Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:27 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Ontologies are not
algorithms [was:
Ontolgizing rain & snow]    (024)


Jack,    (025)


Algorithms are ways to do things. How.    (026)

Ontologies, as a subclass of declarative methods,
are ways to describe
things. What.    (027)

>From an ontology, one can spawn multiple
algorithms that use the
ontology, but this requires a set of
transformations from the
declarative to the imperative. And it will be
multiple, because for
any statement of what to do there are many ways
how to do it.    (028)

If you are working in a declarative paradigm, then
the way to do it is
is to apply declarative transformations as far as
you can, to get
close to a runtime how that preserves the what as
much as possible.    (029)

E.g., from a first-order ontology, you use
knowledge compilation
techniques (examples: reduce to Horn Logic
approximations, use
implicants/implicatures, etc.; there are a range
of tools available,
but this is another partial research thread). Or
you simply use a
first-order reasoner that uses the ontology
directly; however, FOL
reasoners will be slower than other reasoners,
because they deal with
more expressive logical expressions.    (030)

Logic programming (Prolog, Answer Set
Programming), by circumscribing
the FOL syntax, along with potentially using some
non-declarative
constructs (the "cut" operator, ordering
restrictions, a form of
negation that is not quite logical, i.e., negation
by finite failure),
etc., can closely preserve the ontology and
approximate its
declarative entailments, etc., in more efficient
runtime reasoning.    (031)

But if you want to transform an ontology to an
imperative algorithm:
good luck. Mostly these transformations are done
by human programmers.
One can talk about semantics-preserving programs,
etc., but it's
pretty much ad hoc-land. One can annotate programs
(like
"documentation") as to what the imperative
constructs are supposed to
mean, but it is really a very loose correlation.    (032)

That's the difference.    (033)


Thanks,    (034)

Leo    (035)

-------------    (036)



From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jack
Ring
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:48 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontologies are not
algorithms [was:
Ontolgizing rain & snow]    (037)


Dear Nicola,    (038)

Thanks for the response.    (039)

I am aware of several kinds of computational
ontologies. I was
interested in a specific example of what you had
in mind when
declaring that an ontology is not equivalent to an
algorithm.    (040)

Ontologies that I have seen express semantic
equivalences and other
relationships. Some are even loaded with first
order predicates that
look very much like spaghetti code (which I
thought was banned in the
1980's).    (041)

However, I am not interested in arguing the point.
The simple fact is
that systems and systems engineering need semantic
transformers. If
ontologies don't do semantic transforms (e.g.
AP233) then there may be
some residual utility in ontologies in Big Systems
but not the degree
I had hoped.    (042)

Jack Ring    (043)

ps. 'algorithm' predates computer science by
several centuries.    (044)

-------------    (045)


On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Nicola Guarino wrote:    (046)

Dear Jack,    (047)

            sorry for this late answer to your
request. There are
various definitions of (computational) ontologies
adopted by the
community, it shouldn't be difficult for you to
find them, as well as
actual examples of ontologies.    (048)

            Speaking for myself, I spent a good
fraction of my
research career trying to clarify, in a rigorous
way, what a
computational ontology is (see for instance the
paper by Daniel Oberle
and myself on the Handbook of Ontologies, 2nd
edition). Basically, I
agree with the most popular definition "An
ontology is a specification
of a conceptualisation", which requires however a
careful
clarification of what a conceptualisation is (but
this is a long
story, although discussed in various papers). In
logical terms, an
ontology is just a logical theory expressing a set
of meaning
postulates.    (049)

            In my opinion, none of the current
definitions of a
computational ontology is compatible with the idea
that ontologies are
algorithms. If you want to use classing terms of
computer science, you
can perhaps compare an ontology to a data
structure, but not to an
algorithm.    (050)

            In any way, this is not a topic to be
addressed in this
summit. So, if people are still interested, I
would suggest them to
move the discussion to the general Ontolog list.    (051)

Best,    (052)

Nicola    (053)



-------------    (054)

On 31 Jan 2012, at 04:14, Jack Ring wrote:    (055)


Gee, I made a very explicit statement in my brief
last week ---- that
ontology is algorithm --- and you and Nicola
immediately and clearly
disagreed. I followed up with a request for an
example; of an
ontology so we could get down to specifics but
have not yet received
one. Meanwhile an example of Cyc ontology appeared
and I gave some
specifics from a systemist viewpoint.    (056)

If you think that emergence, a very important
phenomenon in systems,
and system models is not a core issue for
ontologists to deal with
then I guess the intersection of SE and ontology
in this forum may
turn out to be only the transform from drawing
(pump 102) to purchase
order (sku2058), i.e., engineering of systems.    (057)

---
__________________________________________________
_______________    (058)

Msg Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
summit/
Unsubscribe:
mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit20
12/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySu
mmit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/    (059)

__________________________________________________
_______________
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    (060)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (061)

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