Linguistics vs. Ontology strikes again! (01)
We all misinterpreted what William meant by "command". (02)
> If that command is issued by one software agent to another (e.g., in a
> SOA-based workflow), is it still a "speech act"? (03)
A "command" in this case is a message from one software agent to another.
The EVENTs of the message being sent and received need to be distinguished
from string or array of bits that is transmitted. This array can be
modified in
various ways during the transmission (bit & byte reordering, encrypting,
being enclosed in an envelope, being packed with other messages, ...,
being unpacked, extracted from the envelope, and decrypted in some order).
Each of these bit arrays that were generated from the bit array of the
command bears some relation to the original command string, and may
be considered to themselves BE commands and/or contain the original
command. (04)
The command string has a specific meaning (for the recipient software
agent to take a certain (highly-constrained type of) action. The recipient
agent is expected to take such an action, possibly after verifying from
properties of the event of the message receipt and meta-information
that had been attached to the command string. (05)
I would suggest that InterAgentSoftwareCommand be a pattern of
characters or bits falling in a hierarchy such as the following: (06)
AbstractInformationStructure
ComputerAIS
ComputerCode
ComputerCodeFunction
ComputerCodeCommand
InterAgentSoftwareCommand (07)
-- doug foxvog (08)
On Tue, May 1, 2012 12:30, Burkett, William [USA] wrote:
> Thank you all for feedback and thoughts.
>
> I find the comments on linguistics and speech acts interesting - I think
> it's the right thread to pull on to find an answer to my original query.
> I don't think the discussion has yielded a clear position of "commands"
> within ontology yet, so here are a few more thought-provoking questions.
>
> Using William Frank's example, the proposition: "cat in a box" can easily
> be represented in an ontology. Representing: "Tom: put the cat in the
> box" (call this command A) in an ontology involves that proposition
> coupled with a command "put", a directing agent (me?), and a directed
> agent (Tom). I agree that A is a speech act (imperative, performative),
> but what is it in an ontology? Are we saying that
>
>
> - "speech act" is an object in an ontology, and
>
> - that "command" is a kind of "speech act", and
>
> - the compound proposition A is an instance of "command"?
>
> If that command is issued by one software agent to another (e.g., in a
> SOA-based workflow), is it still a "speech act"?
>
> Bill
>
> _________________
> William C. Burkett Associate
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> 121 S Tejon St # 900 | Suite 900 South Tower | Colorado Springs, CO, 80903
> T: 719-387-6452 | M: 310-318-5500 | F: 719-387-2020
> burkett_william@xxxxxxx<mailto:burkett_william@xxxxxxx>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:04 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands
>
> Just a follow-up. You might look at Jose Vidal's "Agent Communication"
> briefing: http://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/talks/agentcommunication/.
>
> FIPA (circa 2000) performatives
> http://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/talks/agentcommunication/performatives.html.
> There is also a pointer to FIPA Communicative Act Library
> Specification<http://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/library/XC00037H.pdf>.
>
> KQML performatives:
> http://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/talks/agentcommunication/kqmlperformatives.html/
>
> From:
>
>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
> On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:17 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands
>
> This has been an interesting discussion, with lots of good points made.
> One observation that I will add is that the concept of command (and SOAs)
> implies a relationship (part of the command context others have mentioned)
> between whatever agent(s) is issuing the command (or speech act) and
> whatever agent(s)/service provider(s) the command is directed at. That
> relationship constrains the scope of the command, and determines whatever
> consequence management might be entailed by failure to perform whatever
> actions are being commanded, including any performance shortfalls
> (timeliness, completeness, or other quality attributes specified/expected
> by the command). That is the major reason for SLA's in SOAs. It's also
> why one of the Net Centric Principles is (explicit and dynamic)
> relationship management. Note also that relationships have many operative
> scope dimensions, such as jurisdictional environment (what laws and legal
> framework(s) apply to the relationship), business models, institutional
> context(s), if any, social environment (something commanded might be legal
> but taboo), and operational context(s) in which the relationship and
> associated command might be applicable/valid.
>
> Hans
>
> From:
>
>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
> On Behalf Of William Frank
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 8:41 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands
>
>>From what Leo is saying,
>
> I take the underlying point to be, and it is a critical yet subtle one,
>
> in model theory terms:
>
> the ***model*** is what is really important: the world we are modelling,
> where things happen, (events), things persist (whatever you want to call
> entities or the like), etc. We've *got* to have one of these models, to
> think with.
>
> A speech act is a kind of event, some actor performs the act. The
> propositional content of the act is not part of the type of the event. A
> request is an action-- an act in which the requestor asks another actor to
> do something (this something is not a subtype of request), which other
> actor has the right to decide whether or not to do, based on the request.
> A command is a similar but different action -- an act in which the
> commander indicates an action that the commanded must perform, -- the
> commanded actor is obligated to do as commanded.
>
> The language semantics are the linquistic entities **refering** to the
> model. this has things like verbs in it, that generally **refer to**
> events, and nouns, which might refer to things that we model as events or
> happenings (perhaps avalanches) or to things we model as persisting
> (cities). For example, the particle 'ma' in chinese, the interrogative
> symbol '?' the interogative facial expression of raising the eyebrows.
> All different vocabulary items that refer to the same model element the
> event of asking. We might or might not have one or more of these language
> sematics, separate from the model.
>
> I hope this helps explain the essence of this, in an informal way.
>
> Wm
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Obrst, Leo J.
> <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Yes, nouns and adjectives mostly, besides verbs. I think you are better to
> consider "events". Almost all verbs, but quite a few nouns and adjectives
> do denote events. However, those nouns and adjectives are typically based
> on the verbs. Destroy: destruction : destroyed. They all typically map the
> same natural language arguments into the verb-based predicates and then to
> the event denotation.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> From:
>
>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> On Behalf Of David Eddy
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 8:06 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands
>
> Leo -
>
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>
> Some (we do) model both the linguistic semantics side (e.g., verbs, etc.)
>
> Does "etc" include nouns?
>
> What's the ratio between verbs/commands vs nouns? Many more nouns than
> verbs I believe.
>
>
> Who/what/how controls the nouns?
>
> ___________________
> David Eddy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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<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
>
>
>
>
> --
> William Frank
>
> 413/376-8167
>
>
> This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees
> only.
> It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
> without the permission of the sender.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|