Apologies for the ambiguities.
By machine I mean the devices, e.g., computers, that will be used to manipulate
the operands and operators that comprise an ontology and any reasoning
regarding ontology content.
I understand that Watson is based on a stored program (conventional) computer.
This means its run time will be proportional to the complexness of and
conditional expressions within the ontology/reasoners. A lot of work will go
into transforming the human readable set into the structures that enable such
hardware.
Other kinds of hardware will relieve much of the 'software engineering' that
Watson will entail.
No doubt Watson will be a great leap forward. No reason to not consider
alternative engines, especially if they get dramatically more 'miles per
gallon.'
Jack
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: (01)
> I am not sure I understand your comment.
> I gather that "machine" is used in an abstract sense where others might
> substitute "applications" or "software".
>
> I am not sure if you were characterizing ontologies as rule sets since
> we were talking about tools for representing and manipulating ontologies.
>
> My own limit understanding of the field has me thinking that these are
> different things where rule sets operate on ontologies and data and
> other knowledge (abstracts and texts that have been converted to some
> magical form in Watson) to produce a result.
> I do not know the supported format for ontologies fed to Watson and my
> comment was that anyone hoping to be involved as a practical ontologist
> (does this exist?) in large BIG DATA projects, should be fluent in the
> ontology representation language used by Watson and should be able to
> convert ontologies in other formats to the one that Watson eats.
> I suspect that theoretical benefits and academic discussions will not
> affect Watson's tastes for ontology tools at this point.
>
> My other point was that the "goodness" of the Watson approach is not yet
> proven but this will not matter in the short run since IBM and its
> partner network will consume all of the oxygen in the room until the
> outcome is clear.
> If it turns out that Watson is the "right" way to use ontologies for BIG
> DATA problems, then it will become the only way it is done since IBM is
> able to deliver it relatively inexpensively.
> If not, the surviving ontologists who struggled to find small BIG DATA
> problems that would accept a non-Watson solution will be heroes, if
> their projects succeeded and will be sought out to fix the large BIG
> DATA applications where Watson failed.
>
> Ron
>
> On 22/01/2014 11:03 AM, Jack Ring wrote:
>> It is likely that those tools will prepare rulesets for processing on
>machines that were designed to do arithmetic, not machines that can resolve NP
>hard situations.
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> The real test of tool usefulness will be the ability of the tool to work
>>> with BIG DATA bound for Watson.
>>> My feeling is that BM and its Partner base will actively seek out the
>>> big data projects and propose solutions based on Watson.
>>>
>>> Whether these are all successful will be a moot point for the next
>>> period since it will take a while for enough big data projects that have
>>> any ontological input, to be completed.
>>> In the meantime, marketing will beat theory.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/01/2014 2:16 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2014 12:01 AM, John McClure wrote:
>>>>> How can FOL'ers not be implicitly derisive of the work RDF'ers are
>>>>> diligently about, when the first reaction is to THROW IT AWAY?
>>>> That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm sorry that I used
>>>> the phrase 'throw it away' because it was not clear what I was
>>>> rejecting.
>>>>
>>>> First point: FOL is a small subset of English and other NLs.
>>>> Any language that has the words 'and', 'or', 'not', 'some',
>>>> and 'every' can express full FOL. We all speak FOL every day.
>>>>
>>>> Second point: I wasn't rejecting what can be expressed in RDF.
>>>> You can use RDF to describe anything that you see, hear, or feel.
>>>> Every observation in science can be described in RDF.
>>>>
>>>> But RDF can't express negation. You can't say 'not'. And if you
>>>> take RDF and add negation, you get -- guess what -- full FOL.
>>>>
>>>> Some things you can't say in RDF:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Options: you can't say 'or' in RDF, because (p or q) is
>>>> defined as not(not p and not q) -- and RDF can't say 'not'.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Rules: you can't express an if-then rule in RDF, because
>>>> (if p then q) is defined as not(p and not q).
>>>>
>>>> 3. Generalizations: you can express 'all' or 'every' in RDF
>>>> because 'every cat is an animal' is defined as
>>>> 'it's false that some cat is not an animal'.
>>>>
>>>> My major complaint about RDF is that it makes simple things difficult.
>>>>
>>>> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ron Wheeler
>>> President
>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>> email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>
>
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (03)
|