On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Chris Partridge <partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi John,
Cory mentioned deontic in his original mail.
JS> To support modal logics and other kinds of things, there is only
> one additional operator needed: the that-operator of IKL.
Does this support deontic logic?
My impression is the deontic aspect of models in commercial systems is often
not handled formally, but rather by informal craft and convention.
In the academic sphere there is also (as I am sure you know) research on
using Searlean performatives - which are, I believe, not in CL.
This is all rather ironic as the original programming languages talked of
'commands'.
> Common Logic is a superset of almost every modeling language
> ever invented.
I think this can be misinterpreted. If one uses CL to capture the surface
formal structure of the modelling language, one does not then automatically
capture the intended interpretation.
Where a modelling language has an unclear on convoluted intended
interpretation (not uncommon) merely translating it into CL as best one can
will not resolve this. Though you could argue it is a good first step to
sorting things out.
Regards,
Chris
Perhaps I'm being a bit hard nosed, but if you know that the modeling language
has a convoluted intended interpretation, why would you not define the Common
Logic internal logic to be exactly that interpretation?
If you are going to use logic, I would think you would want to be exact.
CP> I agree you should be exact wrt the intended interpretation, but I do not see how this relates to the points raised.
CP> Working out the intended interpretation is not always easy, particularly for legacy systems – and cannot (usually) be done automatically.
CP> John’s point was – I believe - that one could translate (automatically) from any modelling language to CL. It did not (as far as I can tell) include a process of working out the intended interpretation and revising the translation in the light of this as part of this process. So his claim/proposal would not meet your hard-nosed criteria – but this is probably because it was not intended to deal with it.
CP> If you take the two points I made together, then maybe you will see what I meant about misunderstanding.
CP> If it is the case that a modelling language informally supports deontic logic, then this could become clear when one considered the intended interpretation.
CP> If we assume for a moment that we have formalised this , then my guess is this revised modelling language would not be a sub-set of CL as CL cannot (I believe) handle deontic logic.
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: 15 April 2010 22:13
> To: [sio-dev] discussion
> Subject: Re: [sio-dev] Sharing and Integrating Ontologies
>
> John,
> I would have been VERY disappointed if you didn't reply as you did!
> Note that I am mostly talking about strict FOL, not anything that can be
done
> with CL. I look forward to being proved wrong.
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sio-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:sio-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:29 PM
> To: sio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [sio-dev] Sharing and Integrating Ontologies
>
> Cory,
>
> Short answer to all those questions:
>
> All of those objections have been addressed. None of them are valid.
>
> Longer answers:
>
> > 1) First order isn't good enough - architectures are modal,
> > non-monotonic and deontic - in other words, all the stuff that keeps
> > logicians up at night but people use all the time. While CL may be
> able
> > to go beyond FOL and there may be some ways to encode some of these in
> > FOL+, the semantic set of modeling languages is essentially open and
> so
> > must be the ecosystem.
>
> I've answered this question so many times that I've lost count.
> To repeat:
>
> Common Logic is a superset of almost every modeling language
> ever invented.
>
> To support modal logics and other kinds of things, there is only
> one additional operator needed: the that-operator of IKL. With
> that one feature, it is possible to support SBVR and every imaginable
> modeling language in the universe.
>
> > 2) It is too hard - we want the ecosystem to be friendly to well
> defined
> > languages as well as those that are not. We want to be able to import
> > knowledge that may not be grounded or well formed, we may or may not
> > ground it later. To require that every concept that is brought into
> the
> > ecosystem be formally grounded is too high a bar and would prevent
> > adoption.
>
> FOL is as easy to use as any UML diagram, since all of them are versions
of FOL.
> In fact, all of them can be defined as *dialects* of Common Logic. For
some
> notations, such as SBVR, you can use IKL as the base.
>
> Please note that I have *never* recommended CLIF or CGIF as modeling
> languages. Those languages should be considered the *assembly* language
of
> knowledge representation. What you should be using are dialects of CL
that
> have all the goodies anyone might desire.
>
> > 3) It is fragile and does not deal with inconsistency well.
>
> That is true of every digital computer and every program that runs on any
digital
> computer. But as I said above, I do *not* recommend that anyone should
use
> CLIF or CGIF by itself. You should take your favorite modeling language
and
> have somebody who knows Common Logic and/or IKL define it as a dialect of
CL
> or IKL. Then you can use all your comfy human-factored tools as before.
>
> > So this will probably get me in deep water on this list, but it seems
> > like there is an over-emphasis on FOL.
>
> You've been using FOL all your life without knowing it. I've been trying
to
> explain that for a long time.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
> Join Community:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
> Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies