The notion which, as I interpret his comment below, Mark H Linehan
subscribes to, that the absence of some concepts in certain languages is an
argument against a uniform set of primitive concepts, is flawed in implying
that the absence of use for certain primitives in some communities means
that they must not be valid primitives. No, all it means is that certain
circumstances do not require the full set of identifiable semantic
primitives (identifiable in other languages). People really **do**
understand each other well enough to perform really important communication
functions essential to modern society. (01)
For any given set of ontologies with logically specified meanings there
must ***necessarily*** be some set of primitives sufficient to provide the
logical specifications for all of those applications, the use of which
enables them to interoperate. Adding new applications may (or may not)
require new primitives. The unanswered question is how rapidly the
inventory of primitives will increase as new applications are added. It may
follow some form of Zipf's law, or decrease even more rapidly, or less
rapidly. It can only be answered by a serious attempt to integrate
independently developed databases and applications. That, unfortunately, is
a major project. (02)
The seemingly infinite plasticity of words to label different meanings is a
real phenomenon, but only important within small interacting communities
that can disambiguate unclear language by cross-communication or inference
from common understanding of a a well-defined domain. The "language game"
that I consider of greatest importance to ontological engineering is to be
able to put information onto the internet in a form that can be
automatically properly interpreted by other computer systems, even when they
have no opportunity to interact with the knowledge creators, or even know
who they are or why they put that knowledge there. That requires a common
fundamental language, and keeping that language small enough to be practical
has always suggested to me that it should be based on all of the semantic
primitives that can be identified at any given time. At this point I don't
expect that inventory to go much over ten thousand concepts. Work in
progress. (03)
I expect that robotic procedures for perception and action will eventually
be included in the set of primitives. For the immediate future, that level
of understanding is served, for users of a common foundation ontology, by
careful documentation that will leave as little ambiguity as possible so
that programmers will use the terms properly. (04)
[ML] >
>It is well known that different language groups have varying number of
>discrete concepts for things like types of snow or shades of colors.
>Similarly, different individuals, and groups of individuals, have varying
>capabilities for actions and hence varying vocabularies of action.
>Therefore, it seems unlikely that there can be a fundamental ontology of
>perception or of action.
> (05)
Pat (06)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (07)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark H Linehan
>Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 9:17 PM
>To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR
>
>Regarding "... perception and action are possibly the most fundamental
>objects. Therefore I suggest that the vocabulary of sentences
communicating
>among the agents would have names for designating perceptions and
>actions, as initially present in the infant agent ...."
>
>It is well known that different language groups have varying number of
>discrete concepts for things like types of snow or shades of colors.
>Similarly, different individuals, and groups of individuals, have varying
>capabilities for actions and hence varying vocabularies of action.
>Therefore, it seems unlikely that there can be a fundamental ontology of
>perception or of action.
>
>This is NOT an argument against the idea that "... perception and action
are ...
>the most fundamental objects." It IS an argument against the idea that
there
>is some "... vocabulary ... for designating perceptions and actions, as
initially
>present in the infant agent ...."
>
>Mark H. Linehan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich
>Cooper
>Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 3:21 PM
>To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR
>
>Dear John,
>
>By "handle" I probably should have said
>"designate". I am thinking of the handle (a
>pointer) you use in a program to indicate the base location of an object
type.
>The point is, that in looking for fundamentals among human-like behaviors,
>you suggested that perception and action are possibly the most fundamental
>objects.
>Therefore I suggest that the vocabulary of sentences communicating among
>the agents would have names for designating perceptions and actions, as
>initially present in the infant agent, prior to learning. Learning will
add new
>words to the kernel vocabulary, layer by layer.
>
>Present technology is fairly good at detecting perceptions of more
objective
>physical realities, but not at reading psychosocial scenes. Present
perceiving
>capabilities are not up to human levels in many areas, beyond human levels
>in other, and will remain so dimorphic for the foreseeable future. But
they
>are there, and can be embodied into any agent you may choose to build.
>
>Actions, by humans, were beautifully shaped by evolution into smooth,
>minimal energy-consuming, coordinated movements of the agents effectors,
>with feedback from the agent's sensors. When we evolved to plan and
>execute more complex actions, the new actions were built as combinations
>on top of the kernel actions.
>
>Therefore the infant Kernel of the agent, prior to learning, should
include a
>vocabulary of each and every perception, and each and every action, plus a
>pool of constants, variables and constraints among them, as imposed by the
>agent on the environment, and by the environment on the agent.
>
>
>Learning, based on interaction with knowledge sources (humans, patents,
>databases, social networks,...), would of course introduce more and more
>new words. Within the realm of patent databases, if word A is called out
in a
>claim, only As will do. No Bs can just be freely substituted without
>demonstrating that B is a true synonym of A, or is an effective equivalent
to
>A according to the doctrine of equivalents.
>
>So starting with a vocabulary of objects (as
>perceived) and actions (as perceived) in claim sentences, the vocabulary
can
>grow in layers from the Kernel vocabulary up to nearly anything that is
>lexically distinguishable. I call each layer a "context", and the IDEF0
model of
>that context introduces all the constants, variables and constraints which
>connect that context to its partitions and to its immediate parent
context(s).
>
>
>Is that a fair summary?
>-Rich
>
>Sincerely,
>Rich Cooper
>EnglishLogicKernel.com
>Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F
>Sowa
>Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 10:59 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR
>
>Rich,
>
>The verb 'handle' is extremely vague (or at least underspecified).
>In most cases, it means, approximately, "do something with".
>
>JFS
>> Any propositional representation in any
>language,natural or artificial,
>> is an approximation that is based on some
>"interesting position on the
>> tradeoff". But there is no limit to the number
>and kinds of tradeoffs
>> for different purposes. Peirce's "twin gates"
>of perception and action
>> determine the symbol grounding for any and all
>representations.
>
>RC
>> Then you seem to believe that perception and
>action (i.e., embodied agent
>> with such) handle all designation of the
>vocabulary used to describe what
>> was perceived and what action(s) were performed.
>
>The discussions about symbol grounding ask how words and other symbols
>relate to the world, directly or indirectly.
>Peirce, Wittgenstein,
>and others said that the meaning is based on or derived from the way those
>symbols are related to perception and action.
>
>For concrete words like 'dog' or 'jump', the connections are direct.
>For abstractions like 'justice', the connections are more complex and
indirect.
>But to be meaningful, an abstract concept like Justice must have some
>implications for the way people perceive situations and act within them.
>
>John
>
>__________________________________________________
>_______________
>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
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________________
>_______
>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)
|