Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR

[Ali H <asaegyn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Matthew,

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Ali,

I suggest that a) is ontology, and a) plus b) is robotics.

While I can see why one might identify (b) as referring "robotics", I think that is too narrow an interpretation. 

Perhaps my reading of Smith is too literal, but anything situated in our world is ultimately mechanical (or material). To me, this means that any system that is capable of interpreting or reasoning which an ontology is in the set of things as described by (b).

Best,

Ali

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

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.

 

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali H
Sent: 01 October 2014 23:39
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR

 

Hello all,

 

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 [1]:

 

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) ?

 

[1] 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. 

 

--

.

(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

_________________________________________________________________
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)