ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Organization, and Citizens United vs. The Fe

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gian Piero Zarri <gian_piero.zarri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Gian Piero Zarri <zarri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:30:56 +0200
Message-id: <506F4380.9010208@xxxxxxx>
Dear John,    (01)

You are missing the central point of the discussion with Doug Foxvog, 
which concerned the theoretical and practical opportunity of adopting 
solutions in the "qua-individuals" style for getting rid of the problems 
concerning a sound definition and representation of the notion of role. 
And, in spite of Doug's objections, I maintain that endorsing a wild 
proliferation of individuals sine necessitate does not represent a 
correct methodological approach to the problem. On the other hand, I am 
not interested in Facebook or in extracting knowledge from natural 
language but, mainly, in high-level inferencing starting from complex 
conceptual representations. I can reassure you: in the SQL version of 
NKRL, there are really no problems to store and manage all the required 
individuals - i.e., instances of concepts, those of course that can 
admit direct instances, certainly not "student" or "customer". With 
respect now to the problems in dealing with individuals, I am surprised 
you have never been faced, e.g., with an apparently stupid but concrete 
problem like that of giving meaningful "names" to the instances created 
at run time - apart, of course, of systematically choosing the easy way 
of always creating individuals in the "concept_214" style.    (02)

Regards,    (03)


G.P. Zarri    (04)




On 05/10/2012 19:25, John F Sowa wrote:
> Dear Gian Piero and Simon,
>
> I addressed my previous note to Matthew, but I forgot to comment on your
> notes, which Matthew was responding to.
>
> GPZ
>> ... can you imagine a PRACTICAL system of reasonable dimensions where
>> you are continuously obliged to create new individuals for specifying
>> all the possible everyday behaviours of John (and of all the others)?
>> The management of individuals is particularly tricky and costly in
>> concrete KBs.
> There is a huge difference between individuals and types of individuals.
> There are billions of individuals (AKA "named entities") that must be
> considered in large databases and the WWW.  Facebook alone recently
> reached the milestone of a billion users, but they manage their types
> and roles of users very well.
>
> Facebook doesn't do any deep reasoning, but Cyc has the largest formal
> ontology on the planet.  Their hierarchy includes all the types of
> individuals, relations among individuals, and behaviors of individuals.
>
> In our work with conceptual graphs (at VivoMind), we maintain large
> hierarchies of graphs, which we access in logarithmic time.  We have
> processed many terabytes of natural language text.  Increasing the
> numbers of types (i.e., labels on the nodes of the graphs) speeds up
> the access time.  If your system has difficulty with the number of
> types, you should look for better algorithms.
>
> SS
>> I thought I was being clever, letting meta-properties like "ferpa
>> directory information release ok" be associated with these student objects.
>>
>> Sure, the existence of these role objects may have been rigidly dependent
>> on the person job having at some point existed, but I had no idea this
>> was so modally unacceptable.
> I prefer the term 'role type' to 'role object'.  But there's no problem
> in having a multiplicity of roles and reasoning about them.
>
> When we process and reason with natural languages, we put the concept
> types for 'father' and 'student' in the same hierarchy with 'human'
> or 'man'.  We make note that there are relational and functional
> characteristics of fathers and students that are not shared by
> natural types like human or elephant.
>
> But that does not create any problems for the methods of analysis
> or reasoning.  With logarithmic algorithms, going from a thousand
> types to a million types doubles the access time.  No problem.
>
> John
>   
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>   
>    (05)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (06)

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