[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] How the ‘Internet of Everyday Things’ could turn any

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:52:08 -0500
Message-id: <54DB6C98.5050204@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Kingsley,    (01)

I agree that Nanonotation is a good humanly readable notation, and I
realize that current NLP tools still have a long way to go.  I also
admit that I do all my word processing by typing HTML (including tags)
with an ASCII editor. (I use OpenOffice or LibreOffice to produce PDF.)    (02)

>> That's a rather large amount of typing.  Do you have automated tools
>> to generate those annotations?
> Yes, but I also see value in typing i.e., moderate automation as opposed
> to over automation. In short, there's a meme emerging called "Slow Web"
> [1] which actually sheds light on this issue.    (03)

I agree that we need a lot of human thought and reflection to make
sense of the overwhelming volume of data on the WWW.  No automated
tools will be able to replace human analysis and thought for a
long, long time.    (04)

>> As a general principle, I don't trust people to produce structured
>> data of any kind -- unless they're well trained and have a very
>> strong motivation.
> isn't that like saying: I don't trust people to be able to express
> themselves using sentences?    (05)

No.  It's the observation that only a tiny percentage of programs
run correctly on the first try.  Declarative specifications or
annotations are just as error prone.    (06)

Successful communication in NLs always requires a dialog.  If you
say something to another person and the only response is "OK",
it's unlikely that they'll do what you expect or hope.    (07)

> but isn't error-free data just a variation of error-free ontologies?
> We all know these do not really exist, so we have to live with
> somewhat-accurate data, viewed through a variety of context-lenses    (08)

There are two distinct issues:  reliable sources and reliable conversion
of data from any source to the finished presentation.    (09)

For the second point, businesses in the 1960s required critical data
to be keypunched and verified by *two* typists.    (010)

(See http://www.computerculture.org/2012/05/punched-card-verifiers/ )    (011)

For the first point, a universal ontology would only be possible
if everybody in the world had exactly the same point of view on
every possible issue.  But as we all know, you can't find two
people who agree on everything -- or even one person who agrees
with everything he or she said yesterday.    (012)

John    (013)

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    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>