In spite of having worked with ‘robotics’ researchers for 30 years, I’m not sure what the accepted definition of ‘robotics’ is. The new buzzword is either
‘mechatronix’ or ‘cyberphysical systems’, depending largely on the continent that houses the primary funding source. In Japan, it is still ‘robotics’. But it is all the same idea – software controlled machines. Then again, we may ask whether an automatic
braking system (ABS) is a ‘robot’ in anyone’s assessment, but it is most assuredly a ‘software controlled machine’ that exhibits exactly Smith’s (b).
Similarly, almost all financial systems are automated these days, and there can be no doubt that they engender behavior that manifests their programmed-in knowledge,
but I don’t think anyone would call them ‘robotics’. The critical idea in ‘robotics by whatever name’ (Asimov included) is control of physical systems, and typically some sense of human behavior emulation. And that seems to me rather narrower than Smith’s
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 6:40 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR
I suggest that a) is ontology, and a) plus b) is robotics.
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
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.
On Behalf Of Ali H
Sent: 01 October 2014 23:39
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR
I know this is a topic that has been tread over many years and many times, but I recently came across this statement from Brian C. Smith in :
Any mechanically embodied intelligent process will be comprised of structural ingredients that a) we as external observers naturally take to represent a propositional account of the knowledge that the overall process
exhibits, and b) independent of such external semantic attribution, play a formal but causal and essential role in engendering the behavior that manifests that knowledge.
Why is this definition never proffered when discussing "what is an ontology"?
It seems to me that those in the field of ontology focus on (a).
Do most (formal) ontologists consider Ontology to be (a), and not (b)? If so, why not?
Lastly, I understand that in pantheon of AI sciences, Ontology is often suggested as a sub-discipline of KR - yet why is there such little cross over from KR to Ontology - or am I simply misinformed (c.f. FOIS vs KR or
CommonSenseReasoning as part of AAAI etc) ?
 Smith, Brian C. (1985). "Prologue to Reflections and Semantics in a Procedural Language". In Ronald Brachman and Hector J. Levesque. Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann. pp. 31–40.