Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on

[Ravi Sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Amanda - thanks,

For Rich - how will we share vocabularies or share information, knowledge or data if we can not agree on vocabularies that are common to SME domains?

Regards,

Ravi

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rich, 

Actually, that bit you quoted is from Pat. 

Best, 

Amanda

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

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amanda Vizedom
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:19 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies

 

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.

 

Best,

Amanda

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

--

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile

_________________________________________________________________
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)