Dear Leo, (01)
It strikes me that we have rather different ideas about what reasoning
is. So, before leaping into this further, could I ask you what it is
that makes a system a reasoning system? (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (04)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Obrst, Leo J.
> Sent: 05 March 2006 22:06
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL
>
>
> Oh, come on, Bill. Since when are relational databases reasoning
> systems? Since programming was invented, i.e., a program represents
> some programmer's thoughts about the data and what he/she means about
> that data? So programs that use databases are reasoning systems?
> Because programs encapsulate human reasoning?
>
> This is silly, sorry.
>
> If ontology is about organization, you should be very happy with OWL,
> since as a description logic (also called terminological logic,
> classification logic), it is focused on classification and nearly
> nothing else. Deductive reasoning doesn't really even figure until you
> add SWRL.
>
> I think you need to re-evaluate your rhetoric about this stuff! ;)
> (Hey, I'm am undergoing rhetorical revamping myself; I need company!).
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill
> Andersen
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:28 AM
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: Re: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL
>
> Pat...
>
> Not being flip here...
>
> (1) relational database systems *are* reasoning systems just as much
> as anything.
>
> (2) IMHO, ontology in the information systems context is not about
> *reasoning* but about *organization*. Subtle but important
> difference. Deductive reasoning techniques are an enabler
> but take a
> back seat to organization because there are lots of reasoning tasks
> deductive systems don't do. Here's it's useful to think of
> the world
> as a big video game and "the true ontology" (if there is one) as its
> data model. The "AI" of the video game is the "reasoning". Now, in
> practical application all kind of other effects (e.g. epistemic)
> creep in and those may need to be dealt with using other reasoning
> techniques. Some may call the whole package "ontology" but I prefer
> the more constrained interpretation - it frames the problem better.
>
> (3) Properly done, ontology makes your pet store database better.
> That application probably involves neither analysis nor
> exploitation,
> except perhaps of parakeets.
>
> I'm trying to think of something I'd like to see but I have to leave
> now for a trip. I promise to work on it.
>
> .bill
>
> On Mar 5, 2006, at 10:01 , Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
>
> > Matthew, Bill -
> > Does this wording avoid the potential misinterpretations you were
> > concerned with?
> >
> >
> > (1) We agree that the technology of modeling and representing
> > knowledge
> > has developed to the point where it makes possible the creation of
> > knowledge-based reasoning systems that significantly enhance the
> > capabilities of existing relational database systems and
> > object-oriented programming, to provide information analysis and
> > exploitation capabilities that cannot be realized with those
> > traditional systems alone.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy
> > MITRE Corporation
> > 260 Industrial Way
> > Eatontown, NJ 07724
> > Mail Stop: MNJE
> > Phone: 732-578-6340
> > Cell: 908-565-4053
> > Fax: 732-578-6012
> > Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West,
> > Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 3:50 AM
> > To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> > Subject: RE: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL
> >
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > The way it reads at present (to me at least) is "Databases are dead,
> > KBR systems are going to blow them away". If you mean what you say
> > below then you need to include phrases like "extend the capability"
> > and "complementary" which I do not see in the current text.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cassidy,
> >> Patrick J.
> >> Sent: 04 March 2006 14:27
> >> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> >> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL
> >>
> >>
> >> Mathew,
> >> Since the large ontology-based applications that will be useful
> > for
> >> major problems are likely to use relational databases (or their
> >> equivalent) as their back-end, what is the problem with
> >> saying that the
> >> capabilities of such systems are more advanced than the
> >> capabilities of
> >> database systems alone? They are indeed not "competing" but they
> are
> >> also not "complementary"; the larger ontology-based systems will
> > build
> >> on and extend the database systems.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >>
> >> Patrick Cassidy
> >> MITRE Corporation
> >> 260 Industrial Way
> >> Eatontown, NJ 07724
> >> Mail Stop: MNJE
> >> Phone: 732-578-6340
> >> Cell: 908-565-4053
> >> Fax: 732-578-6012
> >> Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West,
> >> Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 6:43 AM
> >> To: uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL
> >>
> >> Dear Ray,
> >>
> >> The first "conclusion in brief" is:
> >>
> >> "(1) We agree that the technology of modeling and representing
> >> knowledge has developed to the point where it is feasible to
> >> create knowledge-based reasoning systems with information
> >> analysis and exploitation capabilities significantly more
> >> advanced than traditional systems based on relational databases
> >> and object-oriented programming without semantic interpretation."
> >>
> >> Well I don't agree.
> >>
> >> Ontology can help improve the design of systems using traditional
> >> technology, and I can see Knowledge Based Applications adding
> >> significant value to those traditionally developed systems. I can
> >> also see some genuinely "the web as a database" type applications.
> >> However, I think it is inappropriate to compare in this way
> >> traditional systems (that are largely transaction processing
> >> based) and Knowledge Based Systems. They are complementary not
> >> competing technologies.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Matthew West
> >> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> >> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> >> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >>
> >> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> >> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> >> http://www.shell.com
> >> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> >> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> >> Shared Files:
> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
> >> Community Wiki:
> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> >> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> >> Shared Files:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
> > Community Wiki:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> > To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> > Shared Files:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
> > Community Wiki:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> > To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> > Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/
> uos-convene/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?
> UpperOntologySummit
> (06)
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Chief Scientist
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (09)
|