Dear All, (01)
I want to thank John Sowa for having moved this conversation over to
the [ontolog-forum] list, as that is the more appropriate venue for
this particular dialog. (02)
Again, since this [ontology-summit] list is the place for the
OntologySummit2012 discourse, please stay on topic. Before you post,
please ask if your post is contributing to ...
//
The principal goal of the summit is to bring together and foster
collaboration between the ontology community, systems community, and
stakeholders of some of the "big systems." Together, the summit
participants will exchange ideas on how ontological analysis and
ontology engineering might make a difference, when applied in these
"big systems." ...
//
ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012#nid3098 (03)
Also ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012#nid309T
... kindly prefix the subject lines for respective conversation
threads by track topics. As someone (believe it was AmandaVizedom)
said at a recent virtual session (which I paraphrase here), "if your
have trouble labeling a post/conversation and group it under one of
the track labels, chances are, it probably doesn't belong here (on
this [ontology-summit] list.) (04)
We only have a little more than two months to deliver some impactful
results, which needs to be pragmatic and useful to the three
communities concerned; therefore, please stay focused! (05)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (06)
On Feb 9, 2012 1:17 PM, "Yuriy Milov" <qdone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> doug:
>
> I have no objections - just want to clarify few points
>
> > There is no reason to represent the "infinite and open world" for any
> > application.
>
> I think it's too strong
>
> For the future quantum computers we possibly will operate with the real and
> actual infinity (non-locality at least) of applications. The bio-systems
> might also have something "non-mechanical" (that cannot be represented
> formally without "denotation" of the infinity as a "working detail")
>
> > Note that an NP-hard problem, may, for restricted input be easy to solve
> > rapidly. Such solutions can be used and often are.
>
> It's true. Some "incorrect" heuristics may work better than formally correct
> algorithms but what's behind of the "context" and "heuristics"?
>
> I suspect that the contexts could be (and probably are) the "infinite and
> open worlds", as well as the "heuristics" are sort of the magic and miracle
> real stuff which we want to eliminate from our serious daily life - except
> from the life of the little kids, of course - they still need St.Clause :)
> Should adults research and develope such "fairy tails" skills? Or the
> working heuristics and inventions are just inevitable logical sequences of
> the set of rules, ideas, concepts that have to be formally formulated in
> the ultimate and universal ontology (the dream and goal of ontologists)?
>
> yuri
>
> > -- doug
> >
> >> Have fun
> >> Yuri
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (08)
|