Pat, (01)
So, your goal of " accurate semantic interoperability among databases and
applications" is in fact to be attained by having effective communication among
the human authors of the databases and applications. And this very practical
engineering goal is thus dependent on an adequate solution to a very complex
linguistic and philosophical problem. Given your acceptance of the maxim that
"people don't understand each other perfectly", how "accurate" can the
"semantic interoperability" be? And at what point does your minimal subset of
natural language become an improvement on the jargon-laden "natural" language
these people normally use in speaking with one another? (02)
In the engineering world there has been a moderately effective effort in this
area called 'Simplified Technical English' (see http://www.asd-ste100.org/),
which involves two sets of ideas:
- a standard vocabulary for words frequently used in stating engineering
requirements (with the rule: if you mean this, use this word); and
- a set of guidelines for forming clear simple sentences that convey
requirements.
It is expected that users of STE will augment the base vocabulary with common
and less common terms for the technical things and properties in their
particular domain of interest. Using STE is known to achieve effective but
imperfect communication between engineers, even in different disciplines, that
work on a common project, like Airbus. (03)
The important idea in STE is exactly the opposite of what is taught in writing
classes: all sentences are short and plain, you say nothing needless, and you
use the same word for the same thing all the time, every time. It creates a
natural reduction in irrelevant vocabulary, while maintaining the possibility
that the vocabulary of a given domain of work is rich enough to distinguish the
concepts in the domain, and that set may be quite rich. (04)
In STE, a definition typically has the form:
An X has the following properties:
The X is a Y.
The X always has a Z.
The (value of) Property1 of the X is greater than N1 and less than N2.
...
That is, the definition is a set of simple axioms, as distinct from the form:
An X is a Y that has a Z and whose Property1 ... and ...
STE doesn't provide any vocabulary for X, Y,Z, Property1, etc. It does provide
'is a' and 'has a' and 'always' and 'is greater than', and so on. (05)
All of this may, of course, be a solution to a different problem from the one
you envisage, but I see no reason why it would not be useful in communicating
the meaning of database content or application behaviors. They are just
different engineering activities from building an aircraft or a motor vehicle. (06)
-Ed (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 10:17 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that cannot
> be composed of others
>
> To answer the comments of John S and Matthew W:
>
> First, I need to mention (again) that the goal of the work on a primitives-
> based ontology is twofold:
> To provide a basis for accurate semantic interoperability among databases
> and applications
> To provide a knowledge representation that can at least in part support
> computerized human-level language understanding (better than
> alternatives)
>
> These are very practical *engineering* goals, which are unlikely to benefit
> much from broad general theorization. More specifically:
>
> The objections of John and Mathew seem to be based on the
> misunderstanding that I am claiming the existence of some finite set of
> primitives that will precisely define all words that anyone would ever want to
> use or invent. Of course that is improbable in the extreme. This
> misunderstanding perfectly illustrates one of the reasons that the NL goal
> appears to me not to suffer fatally from the problems described in Kilgariff's
> paper (which I read more than once) - that is, if one wants to reproduce
> human-level language understanding one has to remember that people
> don't understand each other perfectly - even those who are well acquainted
> with their native language, and particularly when emotions are engaged and
> debating points are being
> made. The computer doesn't have to be perfect, just as good as people.
>
> To illustrate, consider one point from John's reference slide-set:
> [JS] (goal3.pdf):
> >> No finite set of words can have a fixed, precise set of mappings to a
> >> dynamically changing world
>
> Duh. Of course not, but a finite set of well-specified ontology elements
> **can** have a "fixed, precise set of mappings" to a finite set of databases,
> the meanings of whose elements are determined by the operations and
> goals of their applications. For natural language, we expect inaccuracies,
> even among people using language. Any idiot can say things that no genius
> could understand.
>
> Of course, people stretch meanings of words in new situations, but unless
> all communicating parties are aware of the circumstances, that is what will
> often lead to misunderstanding. We have to explain new uses to other
> people, as well as to our computers, by providing clarifying definitions.
>
>
>
> [MW]
> >2. A concept is primitive unless it is the intersection of 2 or more
> >other
> >concepts.
> >
> This is formal-logic definition of 'primitive'. For the COSMO, most concepts
> are specified by necessary conditions (not necessary and sufficient), and I am
> not overly concerned to identify those that are truly "primitive" from those
> that might actually be constructed from others in the ontology. I am
> concerned that, at the first iteration, I will have a basic set of concepts
> sufficient to specify the meanings of domain concepts used in multiple
> different applications, to a level sufficient to support those applications.
>
> This is a very pragmatic engineering goal. In an engineering task the aim is
>to
> devise an artifact that will accomplish some function. But such artifacts can
> rarely if ever be proven by theoretical arguments to have the proper
> attributes. Reality is complex, and when artifacts are actually used,
> unanticipated problems reveal inadequacies (remember the Obamacare
> website? Hardly a rare case of bugs in an artifact). Proof of concept
> for an engineering task can only be accomplished by building the artifact and
> testing it. That is what the COSMO project is intended to do - test the
>notion
> of an primitives-based ontology to support (initially) semantic
>interoperability
> among databases - and eventually language understanding.
>
> If anyone has a (hopefully simple) test case for database interoperability,
> that would be a useful contribution to the discussion. Theorizing about the
> flexibility of human use of words does not help - the issue is well known and
> does not answer the practical questions involved in this project. The initial
> base of 'defining' concepts in the ontology will be supplemented as required
> for new applications. The issues involved in supplementation have also been
> thoroughly considered. How much supplementation will be necessary as
> time goes on can only be determined in practice. I will be very disappointed
> if, after a hundred applications have been mapped with the ontology,
> *every* new application still requires some new primitives to be added. At
> that point, John may be entitled to gloat.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA Inc.
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> 1-908-561-3416
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> >bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> >Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 4:23 PM
> >To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that
> cannot >be composed of others > >Dear All, >Whilst agreeing with John, I'd
> like to approach this from the other end of the >telescope. First some
>basics:
> >1. For each concept there is a set of objects that it describes.
> >2. A concept is primitive unless it is the intersection of 2 or more other
> >concepts.
> >
> >The proposition is that there is some moderate set of primitive concepts
> such >that there is no useful concept that cannot be defined as the
> intersection of >that set of primitive concepts.
> >
> >Now consider the number of objects there are that we might want to
> >describe.
> >Consider our universe, the galaxies, planetary systems, stars, planets,
> >moons, other bodies, parts of these, life, molecules, atoms, subatomic
> >particles. Then there are all the other possible universes, with unicorns and
> >so on.
> >
> >So you need to prove that there is a number of primitive concepts, n,
> where >n is (a lot) less than infinity, such that it is not possible to come
>up
> with some >useful set of all these objects that is not the intersection of
> some of those n >concepts.
> >
> >It does not seem credible to me that there is any such number, but I look
> >forward to seeing any proof that such a number exists.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Matthew West
> >Information Junction
> >Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> >Skype: dr.matthew.west
> >matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> >https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> >and Wales No. 6632177.
> >Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire,
> >SG6 2SU.
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F
> >Sowa
> >Sent: 03 May 2014 19:54
> >To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that
> cannot >be composed of others > >Gregg, Tom, Pat C, and John B, > >GR
> >> Have you looked at Natural Semantic Metalanguage?
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage
> >
> >Yes. I cited Anna Wierzbicka's _Lingua Mentalis_ in my 1984 book, and I've
> >followed her other books over the years. I call her primitives 'accordion
> >words' -- because you can stretch them and squish them to fit anything you
> >please.
> >
> >They're useful. To quote my favorite philosopher, C. S. Peirce:
> >> It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme. Only, one >>
> must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain. It is equally >> easy to
> be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague. It is not >> so
>difficult to be
> pretty precise and fairly certain at once about a >> very narrow subject. (CP
> 4.237) > >Again, I recommend that every reader of this list *study* the
> paper "I don't >believe in word senses." Adam K and Sue A are
> *professionals* in >lexicography and computational linguistics. They know
> the difference >between accordion words and precise definitions. Both can
> be useful for >different purposes, but it's important to know the difference.
> >
> >TK
> >> I am looking for (I'm going to call it) 'fundamental concepts' and I >>
>am
> making the assumption that there is some basic agreed level of >> definition
> of these concepts so we don't end up in Physics and Chemistry.
> >
> >Brief answer:
> >
> > 1. There is no "basic agreed level" whatsoever -- NONE!
> >
> > 2. The top level of an ontology *must* be vague and underspecified.
> > It can be useful, but the real knowledge is in the lower levels.
> >
> > 3. Please remember that Cyc started out with the assumption that a
> > formal ontology of the knowledge of a high-school graduate could be
> > specified in 10 years. After 30 years and over $100 million of
> > investment, Doug Lenat has emphasized that all the real knowledge
> > is in the detailed low levels. The top level is very vague and
> > underspecified. It cannot support any kind of detailed reasoning.
> >
> >TK
> >> My criteria for 'fundamental concept' is that it cannot be replaced by
>>> a
> semantic net-let that crosses the agreed level.
> >
> >If that's your definition, then you're talking about the empty set.
> >There is no concept or thought of any kind that cannot be analyzed at a
> >deeper level.
> >
> >> So John S, to take your examples...
> >
> >I was just trying to give one-line examples. In any case, the terms in your
> >analyses are accordion words. Please study that paper by Adam K.
> >
> >JB
> >> as Lakoff shows us in "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" the >>
> universals are different for different linguistic environments...
> >> But it still comes down to what type of tasks are facing. The "core"
> >> concepts for farming are very different from those needed in the office.
> >
> >Yes! But I would avoid using the word 'core' because it gives the mistaken
> >impression that some kind of core is possible. But even for farming and
> >offices, the basic terms are accordion words. Note how we use the
> >abbreviation 'cc' in our emails. In office-speak, it used to mean 'carbon
> copy'.
> >When was the last time you saw a carbon copy?
> >
> >PC
> >> according to Guo, the number of senses used **in the definitions** >>
> average to less than 2.
> >
> >If so, Guo doesn't know how to define words or to count definitions.
> >I suspect he was using those terms as accordion words. If you stretch and
> >squeeze them enough, you can adapt them to almost anything.
> >
> >But with every stretch and squeeze, you blur an immense amount of info.
> >Please tell Guo to study Adam K's paper. Also study the publications about
> >*microsenses* by Alan Cruse. A microsense is any intermediate point as
> you >stretch and squeeze your accordion.
> >
> >PC
> >> If anyone knows of such a study, I would very much like to get a pointer.
> >
> >I've given you many, many pointers over the years. And I beg you to study
> >them until you reach enlightenment. For starters, please reread
> >http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal3.pdf and *follow* every URL to every
> >reference in it.
> >
> >Those other goalX.pdf files are also surveys. You have to dig into the
> >references until you get the point. Anything that looks like or smells like
>a
> >primitive is probably an accordion word.
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
>
> >_________________________________________________________
> _
> >_______
> >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 >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|