PC> 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. (01)
Rich>I agree completely. (02)
PC>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 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. (03)
Rich>That I am not so sure of. We keep running
into problems on finding ANY ontology we can
really sign on to, unless it is very teensy, such
as Dublin Core. The hope that any person, or even
most persons, would agree on a vocabulary of any
size and subtlety is, IMHO, misplaced, and will
not happen in our lifetime. More likely, I think
we will continue to see huge disagreement on
nearly any topic people discuss. The reason
behind this is simply that people have to try all
likely combinations of meanings in what they hear
from others. Only by trying to communicate in
relatively simple environments do people learn to
communicate in more complex environments. It's
much like the infant learning new words and
syntax. Listen to a professor bloviate in class
and then ask each student what he/she learned, and
you will get very different answers from each one.
People remain obstinately unique. (04)
-Rich (05)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 11:15 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR (07)
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. (08)
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. (09)
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. (010)
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. (011)
[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.
> (012)
Pat (013)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (014)
>-----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
> (015)
>_________________________________________________
_
>_______________
>Message Archives:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Config Subscr: (016)
>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: (017)
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomeP
a
>ge#nid1J
>
>
> (018)
>_________________________________________________
_________
>_______
>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: (019)
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomeP
age#nid1J
>
>
> (020)
>_________________________________________________
_________
>_______
>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?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (021)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
|