You wrote:
Rich,
Actually, that bit you quoted is
from Pat.
RC> "Whoops!"
-Rick Perry
Even Pat comes up with good comments from time to time.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
www DOT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amanda
Vizedom
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:21 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some
Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies
Rich,
Actually, that bit you quoted is from Pat.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Rich Cooper <Rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear
Amanda,
You
wrote:
Yes, but more than that. In addition, the actual logic allows each point of
view to be expressed in ways that 'natural' for it, and appropriate conclusions
drawn within that point of view, and yet both POVs can use the same vocabulary
and be not only mutually consistent (in the strict logical sense) but even
interderivable from one another, given appropriate linking axioms. So a
conclusion stated in one style can be interderivable with the same conclusion
stated in the other style.
While
that is true, it should also be that SMEs 1 and 2 would describe a slightly
different view, using slightly different vocabulary, not only in the orthogonal
sense of logic for different views, but in the sense of the reasoning each uses
to customize the individual history with that semantic belief of 1, versus that
semantic belief of 2.
In
every KE project I have worked on, conducted or been involved with, there are
subtle differences in world view of each participant. If they got to
freely discuss and debate wherever problems arose, it could get intense, but it
worked more smoothly than the sweat shop management method. If the
manager or customer determined a highly detailed work plan without discussing
it with KEs in the same detail, the plan would be very unstable, with lots of
unanticipated problems that vary by the week.
So
requiring a single POV's vocabulary to match another's simply hasn't worked
historically. Therefore, I expect each claim in a patent to have a unique
vocabulary beyond the claim construction vocabulary. So far, they do, and
by experience I know that the crucial issues will be decided over those words
and phrases that are not standard. Each claim represents one POV as
specified, edited, reviewed, and ultimately issued.
Sincerely,
Rich
Cooper,
Rich
Cooper,
www
DOT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
Rich
AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4
9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
Comment
below.
On
Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:24 AM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Dear Pat,
> It seems to me you are saying that the data elements that you need to talk
> about what is true at a time and change over time are the same for the
> different views of how the world is.
Yes, but more than that. In addition, the actual logic allows each point of
view to be expressed in ways that 'natural' for it, and appropriate conclusions
drawn within that point of view, and yet both POVs can use the same vocabulary
and be not only mutually consistent (in the strict logical sense) but even
interderivable from one another, given appropriate linking axioms. So a
conclusion stated in one style can be interderivable with the same conclusion
stated in the other style.
> I agree. If you are to provide an
> adequate description of however the world is from different view points, I
> think that must be so even. If not the different views would not work, and
> would be dismissed. The problem is that the different views are workable,
> rather than demonstrably wrong.
> However, I don't think that a data format that obfuscates the different
> views helps. It does not make the different views the same somehow, it
just
> demonstrates some level of equivalence. Equivalence is not the same as
> compatibility.
Indeed, but one gets actual compatibility from this style of axiomatization.
(Well to be very careful, there are things that can only be stated in one
framework, but nothing can be done about that.)
Pat
Yes,
and more than that: The approach Pat describes does not "obfuscate
the different views." Having sufficient expressiveness and logical
features allows one to represent very many things as seen from both +
perspectives. If you are working on a project for which it is useful to have
that flexibility, it is very, very likely that it will also be useful to
*capture*, that is *model* the different views more or less explicitly. You
will also want not only model-parts that let you convert between the two, but
inference support that actually does this, and easily.
Having
these things is very useful in enabling multi-modal, multi-directional, and
flexible interaction between an ontological knowledge base and (a) people, (b)
varied systems, and (c) complementary sub-systems such as NLP that have their
own internal representation and can be used more efficiently if they can
interact with the knowledge base's contents in a particular form. In other
words, such flexibility, with explicit (non-obfuscated) axiomitization of
various models and relationships between them, enables a wider variety of
applications, guis, and systems to work with the same ontology / knowledge
base, each interacting with the knowledge (semi-)normalized to the form most
conducive to that interaction.
_________________________________________________________________
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
|