ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Applications] Launching the conversation about La

To: "'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Brand Niemann" <bniemann@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:14:04 -0500
Message-id: <0a0101ccd9c8$7febfb00$7fc3f100$@cox.net>
I certainly agree with John's statement:    (01)

The fundamental principle of computer processing since the 1950s is GIGO:
Garbage in -- garbage out.  It doesn't matter how precise your algorithms
may be if your data happens to be based on somebody's faulty assumptions or
careless mistakes.    (02)

and think that is why Data Science needs to proceed Ontology for Big Systems
to be useful and meaningful.    (03)

See: http://spotfireblog.tibco.com/?p=9343&cpage=1#comment-1157     (04)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:52 AM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Applications] Launching the conversation
about Large-scale Domain Applications    (05)

On 1/23/2012 1:20 AM, joseph simpson wrote:
> Machine semantics and human semantics are usually treated in different 
> manners, especially with reference to symbols and syntax.
>
> While machine processing of semantics is very dependent on common 
> symbols and syntax, human semantics is very dependent on common context.    (06)

I agree with the distinction.  But the fundamental principle is that
*every* artificial language of any kind -- either a version of logic
designed for communicating with humans or a programming language for
computer processing -- is ultimately defined informally in a natural
language that is written by humans for the purpose of being interpreted by
other humans who program the machines.    (07)

Just look at any textbook of mathematics or computer science.
Every formal language is defined in a tightly controlled or stylized natural
language.    (08)

That has been true of *every* artificial language from Aristotle's
syllogisms to the most abstract formal languages used today.    (09)

FCA is based on a formal algorithm for deriving a lattice of concepts from a
table of instances.  But the instances that were put in the table and the
labels of the data items in the table were chosen by human beings based on
their informal intuitions.    (010)

The fundamental principle of computer processing since the 1950s is GIGO:
Garbage in -- garbage out.  It doesn't matter how precise your algorithms
may be if your data happens to be based on somebody's faulty assumptions or
careless mistakes.    (011)

But there is some hope:  techniques such as FCA are very good at detecting
inconsistencies in the data.  They can draw the attention of some human
expert to the source of the inconsistency and request some guidance about
how to correct it.  That is very useful, but it doesn't eliminate the need
for human opinion.    (012)

Alan Perlis made a related observation:  "You can't translate informal
language to formal language by any formal algorithm."    (013)

John    (014)

_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (015)



_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (016)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>