Dear John, (01)
> On 12/22/2012 11:24 AM, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > I had assumed he meant the individual-type distinction. I guess you
> > might mean that here. I thought he was not willing to assume *any*
> > philosophical notion was sufficiently secure for *any* practical
> > purpose
>
> Did you read the McCarthy-Hayes paper from 1969? Section 2.1 has the
title
> "What AI can learn from philosophy".
>
> I believe that studying philosophy is good. But when you're trying to
teach
> students how to implement an ontology, you have to focus on translating
> English spec's to FOL. The philosophical jargon is irrelevant to that
task: (02)
MW: The jargon is but the ideas aren't. Requirements are rarely adequately
specified, so without a good framework to help you fill in the missing bits,
you are not likely to be very successful in translating English into FOL
that will stand the test of time.
>
> 1. Instead of vague discussions about individuals and types, show how
> to map the spec's to variables and relations. (03)
MW: Necessary, but doesn't help you much if you only have half the spec.
>
> 2. A type is specified by a monadic relation P(x). P is the type,
> and x is something of type P. (04)
MW: Perhaps we should ban logical jargon as well.
>
> 3. Two more philosophical terms that should be banished from the
> tutorial are 'universal' and 'particular'. All relations are
> universals, and their arguments are particulars. (05)
MW: So particulars can be universals then when you use the term. I had in
mind the definition in Wikipedia: " In philosophy, particulars are concrete
entities existing in space and time as opposed to abstractions." (06)
> But those
> terms are irrelevant. Just talk about variables and relations. (07)
MW: Why? What light does that shed on missing requirements?
>
> 4. Another nightmare is the term 'abstract particular'. If you mean
> the option of quantifying over relations and letting relation
> variables appear in argument position, then say so. (08)
MW: Well and imprecise as well, since there does not seem to be agreement on
what particular refers to.
>
> > I agree that one can argue things bottoms out with intuition; but I
> > guess we definitely agree it should not start with raw intuition.
>
> Everything starts with raw intuition. But you have to do further
analysis,
> induction, deduction, testing, etc. (09)
MW: Yes, and logic is not much help in that as a framework for analysis.
Great for stating the results once you've got them, but not for the analysis
itself. (010)
> In any case, when you're trying to teach
> students how to representing a subject in FOL, there is no reason to
mention
> the word 'intuition'. (011)
MW: Intuition is just a word we use for a first cut theory.
>
> > The goal is not that to find a perfect ontology, but one that meets
> > the constraints set. The question is what constraints to set.
>
> Of course. Nobody disputes that point.
>
> > A baroque top ontology seems to get in the way. But this may be a
> > feature of the relative immaturity of the area.
>
> Ontology is over two millennia old. For implementing ontologies, we've
had
> FOL for over 130 years. (012)
MW: Neither of those facts makes ontology mature. You know an area of study
is mature when people have stopped arguing about it, and moved on to other
topics.
>
> People have been applying ontologies to AI and databases since the 1960s.
Cyc
> has had over a thousand person-years of R & D in applied ontology since
1984. (013)
MW: That is not a measure of maturity (though I am not trying to suggest
that Cyc is not the most mature ontology we have as yet).
>
> You can't call that immature. (014)
MW: But you can't call it mature either (it's actually irrelevant - spending
lots of time and money is not an indicator of progress). (015)
> I admit that there are a lot of students who
> are hopelessly confused. But much of that confusion is created by people
who
> kick around vague philosophical jargon. (016)
MW: That there is vague jargon and that students are confused is precisely
an indication of immaturity. How many people who have been taught it are
confused about Newtonian Physics? Now that is mature, we even have a pretty
good idea of its limits. (017)
> Just teach students how to translate English spec's to FOL. (018)
MW: But only after you've taught them how to analyse those specs to find
what's missing, for example using an upper ontology with patterns that help
you to fill in the blanks. (019)
Regards (020)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (021)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (022)
>
> 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
> (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
|