John, (01)
I would argue (02)
> ...In most cases, the ambiguity
> arises because of the complexity of the world and the difficulty of
> dividing a continuum into discrete categories. (03)
Every real situation where ontology is supposed to bring a solution is
complex and difficult to divide into discrete categories. The only place
where things are supposed to be managed by discrete categories absolutely is
a legal system - otherwise people cannot folow laws if the laws are not
written by letters and if the legal comments are not understandable by
common sense (common logics?). (04)
> A huge number of cases are resolved very quickly when the issues are
> clear. The ones that go to trial are almost always borderline cases,
> where the question of which law or which distinction applies is
> extremely ambiguous. (05)
There is a lot of cases resolved because of tricks (or even lie) of smart
and experienced in the legal games lawyers, procedural mistakes, and a lack
of money on legal battles on the looser's side. A legal ontology combined
with a resoner could bring more justice for poor people, to the areas of
human rights, family issues, so on. (06)
Complex laws and legal procedures can be ontologized for the Justice because
they are specially written in discreted categories for the formal
conversations. (07)
Even ambiguous borderline cases need to be resolved clearly and explicitly. (08)
And I still believe that it is possible. Otherwise a legal system would not
make a sense as a system supposedly ruled by laws (legal texts written in
discrete categories) which is not the same as not formalized lawyers earning
money. (09)
Yuri (010)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Elevator Pitch (011)
> On 2/1/2011 11:20 AM, Yuriy Milov wrote:
>> A lot of
>> cases could be resolved automatically by resoners without hiring
>> expensive
>> lawyers and the only unique cases would be needed real judges and
>> lawyers.
>
> A huge number of cases are resolved very quickly when the issues are
> clear. The ones that go to trial are almost always borderline cases,
> where the question of which law or which distinction applies is
> extremely ambiguous.
>
> And the reasons why those issues are unclear has nothing to do with the
> way lawyers or ordinary citizens think. In most cases, the ambiguity
> arises because of the complexity of the world and the difficulty of
> dividing a continuum into discrete categories.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (013)
|