John,
Just to try to clarify my views on the issues you consider problematic: (01)
[PC] >> For any *given set* of
>> ontologies there will indeed be some foundation ontology that includes
>> all of the primitive elements that can specify all of the concepts in
>> those ontologies.
>
>That can only be true if there is a bottom (foundation) where the analysis
of
>meaning ends. [JS] (02)
I think we can agree that there will be newly discovered aspects of
reality that change our perceptions of what now seem to be primitive
concepts. So the inventory of "primitives" may change over time. At any
given time, for any given set of applications, however, I do expect that we
can identify basic concepts whose meanings cannot be specified (adequately
for applications) using other concepts - the ones I think of as "primitive".
These will suffice to describe all of the concepts in the finite set of
communicating applications, sufficient to serve the purpose of those
applications, and the purpose of accurate communication between those
applications. (03)
My view of "primitives" is purely functional, those concept and
ontological entities that we can't fully describe with other more basic
concepts or ontology elements (at any given time for any given set of
applications). I am intrigued but not particularly concerned with their
philosophical status, which may never be resolved. But to approach human
levels of understanding in the computer, the issue of "grounding" is
important. At present, most of the grounding is based on the understanding
by users of the meanings of the ontology elements, for which I try to
include adequate documentation so that all users will be able to use those
elements in the same sense. More automated grounding less dependent on
people will require sensor and effector functions linked to the ontology,
which is not likely to be accomplished in the immediate future. (04)
Perhaps you would prefer to call these ontology elements as "relatively
primitive" or "functionally primitive" (relative to their current uses). (05)
[JS] > >No. Human languages are the *best choice* for practical purposes.
I was discussing communication between computers. Whether that will
ever be more accurate than human-human communication is not predictable from
current practice, where humans definitely have the advantage. I expect
computers will be better than people eventually because they can examine
everything inside the "mind" of the other parties, which humans can't do.
But I cannot prove that by logical argument. I actually expect to live long
enough to see it, though. (06)
Pat (07)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (08)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 9:45 PM
>To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ontology-summit] Are there primitive concepts? (Was ontology
>driven integration...)
>
>Pat,
>
>I changed the name of this thread to emphasize the critical issues:
>
>PC
>> I think you missed the important qualification - "all of the domain
>> concepts *in the communicating ontologies*". For any *given set* of
>> ontologies there will indeed be some foundation ontology that includes
>> all of the primitive elements that can specify all of the concepts in
>> those ontologies.
>
>That can only be true if there is a bottom (foundation) where the analysis
of
>meaning ends.
>
>For example, let's consider physics. If you can't find a bottom for a
subject as
>precise as the hardest of the "hard" sciences, the claim that you can find
a
>bottom for anything else is hopeless.
>
>But look at Newtonian mechanics. Physicists still use the same
>words: mass, energy, force, momentum... For many applications, engineers
>choose Newton's definitions, even though they know that physicists have
>radically different and more precise definitions.
>
>PC
>> I have always warmly welcomed suggestions for primitive concepts that
>> appear necessary and are not already in COSMO.
>
>I have always considered that the work you have done in designing the
>COSMO ontology is good. My primary criticism is that the terms you have
>chosen *are not* and *cannot be* primitive.
>
>PC
>> there will always be some ambiguity in the meanings, but there has
>> always been even more ambiguity in human use of language.
>
>No. Ambiguity is *not* inherent in human language. It is the result of
the
>subject matter. When chess players talk about a chess position, their
natural
>language about the placement of the pieces is just as precise as any
artificial
>notation. But when they talk about the "brilliance" of a combination, no
>version of language or logic can be precise.
>
>PC
>> We can aim for intercomputer communication that is more accurate than
>> interhuman communication, but it will still not be perfect, just good
>> enough for our practical purposes.
>
>No. Human languages are the *best choice* for practical purposes.
>For special purposes, you can take a subset of some NL, edict narrow
>definitions, and assign special symbols: 'NaCl' = 'sodium chloride'.
>But you get exactly the same precision when you use the same definitions
in
>English or in chemical symbols.
>
>Furthermore, engineers use different definitions of the same words for
>different aspects of the same project -- e.g., chemical reactions inside
an
>engine (described in quantum mechanics) and mechanical motions of the
>pistons (described in Newtonian mechanics).
>
>Precise definitions are brittle -- like a stone building that collapses in
an
>earthquake. Ambiguity promotes flexibility -- like a wooden building that
>creaks and groans, but remains standing.
>
>For special purposes, brittleness may be a requirement. But in general,
>ambiguity *facilitates* communication. Without tolerance for the
inevitable
>variations (i.e., ambiguity), communication among independently developed
>systems would be impossible.
>
>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/ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (010)
|