On Dec 22, 2012, at 4:26 PM, William Frank wrote: (01)
> The below might fit somewhat with the way John Sowa wants to have only
>variables and relations, but is quite different from how I have usually seen
>any modelling theories, including FoL applied. I have found difficult,
>practical problems in dealing with the day to day knowledge that people have,
>and expressing it formally, using syntactic categories dictated by a modelling
>paradigm, no matter what we CALL the categories: variables and relations, or
>blings and wahoos, without carrying more or less theoretical baggage. I seem
>to find baggage in the way most people **apply** FoL and OWL, whether
>required by the form to do so or not, lots more still in E-R modelling, and
>needing to travel with a whole host of porters for the standard UML semantics.
> I may well be wrong, but seem to have found that not making any such
>distinctions the easiest way to avoid as much of this baggage as possible,
>while using an upper ontology as a way of classifying these thingies, though
>that UpperOntology of course not being of interest to the domain
>practitioners, but being a finer grained, more useful theory than the others
>mentioned.
>
> I seem to find that if one starts with a theory, the examples provided
>somehow wind up fitting it. Easy peasy. But collecting everyday knowledge
>and then analysing it is a different kettle of fish. I have found that
>software designers always just throw away what does not fit their tools, 'hard
>coding' the rest. Maybe I have been just been looking in the wrong places.
>For example, here is what I learned at the paint store. The guy behind the
>counter did not think this was hard stuff, but it's been bothering me for 30
>years, since I started to apply instead of theory:
>
> Analysis Corpus for Paint Store Domain Ontology
>
>
>
> All paints have a color
>
> Colors are defined by manufacturers
>
> All paints have a manufacturer
>
> Rose Red is a Color defined by Dutch Boy (02)
OK so far
>
> So, If the manufacturer of the paint is not Dutch Boy, the paint color cannot
>be Rose Red (03)
Does not follow, unless you have put a lot more meaning into "defined by" than
the words suggest. (04)
>
> Paint 347 is Rose Red (05)
has color rose red (?) (06)
>
> All paints have a gloss
>
> Eggshell is a gloss
>
> if the color of a paint is rose red, the gloss of the paint may not be flat (07)
Is that an axiom or supposed to be an entailment? (08)
>
> Paint 347 is eggshell
>
> a 1 pint square can is a container
>
> containers have sizes, 1 pint is a size
>
> a paint product is a paint from a manufacturer in a container (09)
Whoa. You need to distinguish paint types from particular amounts of a paint.
One can might be full of Paint347 but that doesnt mean it contains all the
Paint347 ever made. I would suggest thinking of Paint347 as a mereological sum
of all the pieces of that paint, one of which is in the can. (010)
>
> paint products are identified by SKUs
>
> SKU 1355 is the paint product:
>
> paint 347 in container 1 pint square can
>
> if the color of a paint is rose red, the gloss of the paint may not be flat
>
> SKUs have prices (011)
SKUs have prices, or things identified by SKUs have prices? (012)
>
>
> This is a dented SKU 1355 can.
>
> a purchase is a transaction between the paint store a a customer, involving
>SKU quantities delivered by the store to the customer, and amounts paid by the
>customer to the store, where ....
>
> purchase volumes are quanities of paints purchased by a given customer segment
> each customer is in a customer segment
> John Deer is a customer, and in the commercial customer segment
> commerical customers are a customer segment
> Paint 347 is not often purchased by commercial customers
>
> ***every one*** of these things mentioned, from dented cans to their skus to
>purchases to colors to being a gloss, except for syntactic and logical
>particles like 'has' 'is' and 'if' and 'every' seem most easily represented as
>thingies to me, thingies we give names to, with the least teaching required,
>except for people who have to unlearn about attributes and entities etc. (013)
I agree. Common Logic philosophy is, if you can refer to it, then it's a
thingie, and all thingies can play any logical 'role' : they can be thought of
as relations or functions (and can then take any number of arguments) and they
can themselves stand in relationships to other thingies. They can even be
predicated of themselves. There is no requirement to distinguish non-relational
thingies from relational thingies. (014)
After living for years with the syntactic restrictions of classical GOFOL,
using CL is something like running barefoot after years of wearing shoes:
wonderfully liberating, entirely natural, healthier, but perhaps very slightly
more dangerous. (015)
Pat (016)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
>
> 1. Instead of vague discussions about individuals and types, show how
> to map the spec's to variables and relations.
>
> 2. A type is specified by a monadic relation P(x). P is the type,
> and x is something of type P.
>
> 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. But those
> terms are irrelevant. Just talk about variables and relations.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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. 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'.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> You can't call that immature. 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.
> Just teach students how to translate English spec's to FOL.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> William Frank
>
> 413/376-8167
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (017)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|