Re: [ontolog-forum] Pentatonic debates (Was: Re: Ontology vs KR)

[John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/6/2014 4:13 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:

The right way to stop the repetition is to stop using the term ontology incorrectly. Knowledge Representation and schema seem more than adequate to me.

Steven

See this is where the trouble starts with broad concepts. What is KR to you is not Ontology to another. Traditionally, KR has meant a bunch of data structures and maybe a lexicon. Ontology is more than that. To address this disconnect we either have to broaden the definition of KR or we have to come up with another K term that is as inclusive as Ontology.

I believe the semantic issues start with the "problem to be solved". If you are working toward a database solution using a knowledge base, then that is different than working to build an expert system.

-John Bottoms
 FirstStar Systems

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The pentatonic scale, dividing the octave into five notes, is a recognizable pattern in the folk music of many cultures. Pretty much any sequence of notes in this scale sounds melodic, and many well-known melodies fit into it. However, it has no semitones and is incapable of handling sophisticated musical composition. After a while it gets kind of monotonous.

I would like to propose that we re-name ontolog forum as the Ontologist's Pentatonic Scale, or OPS. The same arguments and points get made and re-made over and over again, always at about the same philosophical depth. It is entertaining at first, and like folk music it has a kind of reassuring simplicity, but it gets boring after a while, as one tends to hear the same melodies repeated for the hundreth time.

Anyone else agree?

Pat Hayes

On Oct 4, 2014, at 7:49 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Pat C, Ed, Leo, Steven, Rich, and Mark,
>
> I'd like to quote Anna Wierzbicka's remark about her "primitives".
> Her point is also true of Longman's list of 2000 defining terms,
> which Pat has emphasized:
>
> AW, _Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis_
>> An adequate definition of a vague concept must aim not at precision,
>> but at vagueness:  it must aim at precisely that level of vagueness
>> which characterizes the concept itself.
>
> Anna W's list, Longman's list, and the synsets of WordNet are vague.
> That vagueness is *useful* for enabling incompatible predicates
> from inconsistent ontologies to be mapped to the same synsets.
> Those mappings are valuable for NLP, but not for detailed reasoning.
> Immanuel Kant summarized the issues:
>
> IK, _Logic_, Dover reprint.
>> Since the synthesis of empirical concepts is not arbitrary but based
>> on experience, and as such can never be complete (for in experience
>> ever new characteristics of the concept can be discovered), empirical
>> concepts cannot be defined. Thus only arbitrarily made concepts can
>> be defined synthetically. Such definitions... could also be called
>> declarations, since in them one declares one’s thoughts or renders
>> account of what one understands by a word. This is the case with
>> mathematicians.
>
> In short, you can have complete formal definitions in mathematics.
> Since every computer is formally specified, every program does
> something very precise -- but what it does so precisely might not
> be what the programmer had intended.
>
> EL
>> Thorough simplification leads to convergence in underlying features
>> of language design, such as the structure of information building
>> blocks that are well designed to be easily arranged.
>
> I assume that you're talking about the design of computer systems
> and languages.  I agree that those designs should be clean, simple,
> and formally defined.
>
> To draw an analogy, the difference between what a programmer says
> and what the program actually does is similar to the difference
> between WordNet and formal ontologies.
>
> Leo
>> One exception may be the foundations of mathematics (and logic)
>> such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) or variants...
>
> Kant would say that any mathematical system can be specified
> precisely.  But the question whether a single foundation can
> be adequate for every possible mathematical system has been
> hotly debated since it was first proposed in the 19th century.
>
> Leo
>> Then of course for science, to gauge/adjudicate scientific
>> theories, one gets into philosophy of science issues such
>> as theory succinctness...
>
> SE-Z
>> Not the case Leo ... There is no bridge constructed between
>> Pure Mathematics the Physical Sciences...
>
> I'll let Leo and Steven clarify what they mean.  But I'd emphasize
> that mathematics is not part of physics.  Those precise mathematical
> specifications of physical concepts are *fallible* and *changeable*.
>
> English words such as 'mass', 'force', 'energy'... are mapped
> to incompatible theories in the same way as as WordNet synsets.
> In fact, engineers frequently and *knowingly* use incompatible
> definitions of those terms for different components of the same
> physical system -- car, airplane, computer...
>
> RC
>> 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.
>
> MHL
>> it seems unlikely that there can be a fundamental ontology of
>> perception or of action.
>
> The vague primitives by Anna W. are an example of a vague starting
> set that is common to infants around the world.  But AW would agree
> with Mark (and Kant) that no formal definition is possible *or*
> desirable.  Any such definition would destroy their flexibility.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes







_________________________________________________________________
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
 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)