John, you wrote:
But the question we are addressing
in Ontolog Forum is how to replace
Rich with either a fully automated
or at least a partially automated
assistant. (01)
My suggestion is to develop an
intelligent assistant that can use
logic, ontology, and
semi-automated methods with controlled NLs
to assist people like Rich. But
there is much more to say. (02)
John (03)
______________________________________________ (04)
But there is a built-in bias in this forum by each
individual participating; we each have our own set
of goals, and we believe some of our goals overlap
so our experiences are likely to be worth sharing. (05)
I am not so sure I would agree that replacing
programmers is the goal of all of us (: [).
Programmers by construction labor to replace
themselves in any case. (06)
More individually we Ontologers each seek to share
experiences in representing problems and solutions
in ways that can be leveraged by intelligent
assistant programs, language analyzers, or other
applications. (07)
That seems more a representation issue; how should
we represent action sequences and compositions of
them so that we can generate operational
instructions to control the selected system. (08)
A subproblem comprises how to merge and filter
knowledge appropriate to each task into a small
context. Treating context like virtual symbol
tables, we can keep the context small enough to
manage in real time by known evaluation and
tracking functions, including sensors and
effectors. Inference, pattern recognition, data
mining and machine learning can then each be
applied a database of situations with relatively
few to unify over. (09)
The Internet of Things (IoT) buzzword really means
that we have to figure out which interfaces to
which Things need to be provided to other Things. (010)
You also wrote:
In my note to Tara and Pat, I
showed how logic could be used
to specify several options that
someone might want to program.
See below for an excerpt of the
relevant points from that note. (011)
Note that any of those options
could be stated very easily in
controlled English or any version
of FOL -- linear or graphic. (012)
If you want to use a procedural
language to implement some software,
it's easier to map controlled
English or any version of FOL to
a procedure than to explain a
procedure in English or logic. (013)
That is also correct, IMHO, attached procedures
have been used for that for many decades, and in
practice, they remain the most effective solution.
It also nests them within logical shells that pin
language fragments of objects and actions, and
IMHO, those object and thing classes should be the
only object an d thing classes in the context. (014)
That is the kind of tight contextual wrapping
which needs to be applied to any IoT thing and
published among the network, like the discovery
process the Bluetooth spec performs. (015)
-Rich (016)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (017)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:06 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions
on the Benefits of Predicates as Nodes (018)
Rich and David, (019)
In my previous reply to Rich, I made a very
general comment that
logic can specify anything that can be programmed
in any procedural
notation. But I admit that my comment was too
general to provide
much guidance in any particular case. (020)
In my note to Tara and Pat, I showed how logic
could be used
to specify several options that someone might want
to program.
See below for an excerpt of the relevant points
from that note. (021)
Note that any of those options could be stated
very easily in
controlled English or any version of FOL -- linear
or graphic. (022)
If you want to use a procedural language to
implement some software,
it's easier to map controlled English or any
version of FOL to
a procedure than to explain a procedure in English
or logic. (023)
DW
> Look at the simple matter of ordering
medication.
> * If you order it for an outpatient, the
medication is dispensed
> in a single bottle or bag. All thirty days
worth is together.
> * If you order it for an inpatient, the
medication is dispensed
> daily, one pill a day, necessitating tracking 30
sub-orders. (024)
RC
> An Order is a Purchase Order, which splits into
numerous Work Orders,
> each of which specifies the Context in which it
operates. Each WO
> processor (called an activity in IDEF) uses the
various objects
> connected to its context specification. I
developed a factory work
> flow management system that... (025)
David stated a typical example that requires a
fair amount of inference
to determine to what do. Rich explained how he
used human background
knowledge and reasoning methods to implement an
appropriate system. (026)
But the question we are addressing in Ontolog
Forum is how to replace
Rich with either a fully automated or at least a
partially automated
assistant. (027)
My suggestion is to develop an intelligent
assistant that can use
logic, ontology, and semi-automated methods with
controlled NLs
to assist people like Rich. But there is much
more to say. (028)
John
__________________________________________________
__________________ (029)
Slightly edited excerpt from my previous reply to
Tara and Pat: (030)
Controlled English: If C employs P, there is an
implicit interval T,
and for all instants t in T, C employs P at t. (031)
A representation that relates a two-argument
'employ' relation
to a thee-argument version that includes time: (032)
(forall (C P)
(if (employs C P)
(exists ((T Interval)) (forall ((t
Instant))
(if (isin t T) (employs C P t)) )))) (033)
But a more general option would be an entity of
type Employ,
which may have any number of qualifiers attached
to it.
For required qualifiers, you could state
appropriate axioms. (034)
CE: For every instance x of Employ, there is an
implicit
interval T, and for every instant t in T, x occurs
at time t. (035)
(forall ((x Employ)) (exists ((T Interval))
(forall ((t Instant))
(if (isin t T) (at_Time x t)) ))) (036)
With this representation, an assertion that C
employs P
could be represented with "case relations" as (037)
CE: There exists an instance x of Employ whose
agent is C
and whose theme is P. (038)
(exists ((x Employ)) (and (Agent x C) (Theme x P)) (039)
This assertion and the axiom above imply the
existence of interval T. (040)
The English verb 'occurs' in the example above
suggests an even
more general representation: Define Employ as a
subtype of
Occurrent that persists for some interval. Then
you could state
one axiom that would cover a wide range of actions
or states. (041)
You could say that the entity of type Employ is a
reification.
But I would rather say that it's just an entity of
type Employ. (042)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (043)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (044)
|