ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:16:11 -0500
Message-id: <54DB8E5B.4080303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2/11/15 9:52 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Kingsley,
>
> 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.)    (01)

Yes, so do I.    (02)

I really think the industry has generally overlooked the fundamental 
file create, save, and share pattern [1]. Net effect, the notion of a 
tractable read-write web remains mercurial to comprehend at best.    (03)

I use Nanotation as a means of demonstrate how the following is now 
possible, at web-scale:    (04)

1. Commentary about anything
2. Read-Write against commentary
3. Data creation and sharing in general.    (05)

>>> 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.
> I agree that we need a lot of human thought and reflection to make
> sense of the overwhelming volume of data on the WWW.    (06)

Yep! The "Fast Web" doesn't encourage "Critical Thinking" hence the 
exponential growth of noise on the Web.    (07)

>    No automated
> tools will be able to replace human analysis and thought for a
> long, long time.    (08)

Yep! Thus, we have to orient towards tools that are as close to natural 
language sentence construction as possible. It is this line of though 
(thanks to a lot of your writing and knowledge sharing) that lead me to 
Nanotation.    (09)

>
>>> 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?
> 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.    (010)

And we know errors are features that will live with humanity forever. 
Thus, we shouldn't let their prevalence impede tool development progress .    (011)

>
> 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.    (012)

I agree. That's why we all need to be able to contribute commentary 
about anything, in a manner native to the Web.
>
>> 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
> There are two distinct issues:  reliable sources and reliable conversion
> of data from any source to the finished presentation.
>
> For the second point, businesses in the 1960s required critical data
> to be keypunched and verified by *two* typists.
>
> (See http://www.computerculture.org/2012/05/punched-card-verifiers/ )
>
> 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.    (013)

The universal ontology (as you know) is logic, everything else boils 
down to "context lenses" through which we attempt to make and share 
experience.    (014)

>    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.    (015)

Exactly! And that's a good thing -- heterogeneity is the spice of life :)    (016)

Links:    (017)

[1] http://www.shirky.com/writings/view_source.html -- View Source... 
Lessons from the Web's massively parallel development.    (018)

Kingsley
>
> 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
>   
>
>    (019)


-- 
Regards,    (020)

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this    (021)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


_________________________________________________________________
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)

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