[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that cannot be comp

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ed Lowry <eslowry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 21:14:32 -0400
Message-id: <536988F8.2020207@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 5/6/2014 2:24 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Five points (the last four of which I believe are obvious):     (01)

> 1. I thought that you viewed STE in a positive light. That's why I 
> considered it a useful starting point.    (02)

> 2. There is a continuum from unrestricted NLs, Schema.org, CNLs like 
> STE, CNLs like SBVR, CNLs that map to a formal logic, and the many -- 
> generally unpopular and largely ignored -- formal logics.     (03)

> 3. Engineers and systems analysts have been using unrestricted NLs 
> supplemented with diagrams for years -- and they still are. When they 
> are gifted with an ontology stated in any formal logic, they *ignore* 
> the logic and read only the comments.     (04)

> 4. They aren't going to make a disruptive jump from NLs + diagrams to 
> formal ontologies. But they can be persuaded to move along the 
> continuum -- provided that they are given suitable tools.     (05)

> 5. If you want people to be virtuous (any way that you define virtue), 
> you need to make virtue the path of least resistance.     (06)

> If you disagree with #2, #3, #4, or #5, please cite the evidence.     (07)

Point 4 seems far from obvious.  None of us can offer much evidence 
about who will or ill not make make major changes.
What I can provide evidence for is that progress in developing language 
for expressing formal ontologies etc has been
blocked for about 40 years on 6 leading edges (perhaps 7). See 
"Inexcusable Complexity for 40 years" on my web site.
I will not be surprised if the correction will be disruptive when it 
comes.  Currently used information building blocks for
knowledge representation are arguably "square wheel" unreasonable. 
Realizing that could produce quite scramble.
 From Airfoils to Zippers technologists have been diligent about 
understanding their fundamental structures.  Software
leaders have suppressed knowledge about the structure of easily arranged 
information building blocks for decades.
> But my experience at IBM convinced me of the need for a smooth 
> migration path for any new technology. With it, a mediocre design can 
> succeed (eg, Windows or Intel X86). Without it, superior designs are 
> dead on arrival (eg, OS/2 or DEC Alpha). 
My experience at IBM showed that a drastic departure from old 
technology, such as the development of S/360, could
be one of the most outstanding industrial developments of the century.    (08)

In 1982 it was practical for me or colleagues at Digital Equipment Corp 
to enter a statement in a
very general programming, data base, and modeling language for computer 
execution such as:    (09)

     6 = count every state where populatn of some city of it > 1000000    (010)

I think it would be helpful if people in this list who wish to present 
themselves as experts would
show us how simply they can express this statement in a precise language 
they are familiar with. I will be surprised
if anyone can do it with less than twice the complexity.    (011)

I have been very impressed by John's historical perspective. I wish he 
had noticed more fully what was happening
in his group at IBM in 1972.    (012)

Ed Lowry
http://users.rcn.com/eslowry    (013)

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    (014)

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