On 10/6/2014 4:13 PM, Steven
Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
The right way to stop the repetition is to stop using the
term ontology incorrectly. Knowledge Representation and schema
seem more than adequate to me.
Steven
See this is where the trouble starts with
broad concepts. What is KR to you is not Ontology to another.
Traditionally, KR has meant a bunch of data structures and maybe a
lexicon. Ontology is more than that. To address this disconnect we
either have to broaden the definition of KR or we have to come up
with another K term that is as inclusive as Ontology.
I believe the semantic issues start with the "problem to be
solved". If you are working toward a database solution using a
knowledge base, then that is different than working to build an
expert system.
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Pat
Hayes
<phayes@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
The
pentatonic scale, dividing the octave into five notes, is a
recognizable pattern in the folk music of many cultures.
Pretty much any sequence of notes in this scale sounds
melodic, and many well-known melodies fit into it. However,
it has no semitones and is incapable of handling
sophisticated musical composition. After a while it gets
kind of monotonous.
I would like to propose that we re-name ontolog forum as the
Ontologist's Pentatonic Scale, or OPS. The same arguments
and points get made and re-made over and over again, always
at about the same philosophical depth. It is entertaining at
first, and like folk music it has a kind of reassuring
simplicity, but it gets boring after a while, as one tends
to hear the same melodies repeated for the hundreth time.
Anyone else agree?
Pat Hayes
On Oct 4, 2014, at 7:49 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Pat C, Ed, Leo, Steven, Rich, and Mark,
>
> I'd like to quote Anna Wierzbicka's remark about her
"primitives".
> Her point is also true of Longman's list of 2000
defining terms,
> which Pat has emphasized:
>
> AW, _Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis_
>> An adequate definition of a vague concept must aim
not at precision,
>> but at vagueness: it must aim at precisely that
level of vagueness
>> which characterizes the concept itself.
>
> Anna W's list, Longman's list, and the synsets of
WordNet are vague.
> That vagueness is *useful* for enabling incompatible
predicates
> from inconsistent ontologies to be mapped to the same
synsets.
> Those mappings are valuable for NLP, but not for
detailed reasoning.
> Immanuel Kant summarized the issues:
>
> IK, _Logic_, Dover reprint.
>> Since the synthesis of empirical concepts is not
arbitrary but based
>> on experience, and as such can never be complete
(for in experience
>> ever new characteristics of the concept can be
discovered), empirical
>> concepts cannot be defined. Thus only arbitrarily
made concepts can
>> be defined synthetically. Such definitions... could
also be called
>> declarations, since in them one declares one’s
thoughts or renders
>> account of what one understands by a word. This is
the case with
>> mathematicians.
>
> In short, you can have complete formal definitions in
mathematics.
> Since every computer is formally specified, every
program does
> something very precise -- but what it does so precisely
might not
> be what the programmer had intended.
>
> EL
>> Thorough simplification leads to convergence in
underlying features
>> of language design, such as the structure of
information building
>> blocks that are well designed to be easily
arranged.
>
> I assume that you're talking about the design of
computer systems
> and languages. I agree that those designs should be
clean, simple,
> and formally defined.
>
> To draw an analogy, the difference between what a
programmer says
> and what the program actually does is similar to the
difference
> between WordNet and formal ontologies.
>
> Leo
>> One exception may be the foundations of mathematics
(and logic)
>> such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) or
variants...
>
> Kant would say that any mathematical system can be
specified
> precisely. But the question whether a single
foundation can
> be adequate for every possible mathematical system has
been
> hotly debated since it was first proposed in the 19th
century.
>
> Leo
>> Then of course for science, to gauge/adjudicate
scientific
>> theories, one gets into philosophy of science
issues such
>> as theory succinctness...
>
> SE-Z
>> Not the case Leo ... There is no bridge constructed
between
>> Pure Mathematics the Physical Sciences...
>
> I'll let Leo and Steven clarify what they mean. But
I'd emphasize
> that mathematics is not part of physics. Those precise
mathematical
> specifications of physical concepts are *fallible* and
*changeable*.
>
> English words such as 'mass', 'force', 'energy'... are
mapped
> to incompatible theories in the same way as as WordNet
synsets.
> In fact, engineers frequently and *knowingly* use
incompatible
> definitions of those terms for different components of
the same
> physical system -- car, airplane, computer...
>
> RC
>> the infant Kernel of the agent, prior to learning,
should include
>> a vocabulary of each and every perception, and each
and every action,
>> plus a pool of constants, variables and constraints
among them, as
>> imposed by the agent on the environment, and by the
environment
>> on the agent.
>
> MHL
>> it seems unlikely that there can be a fundamental
ontology of
>> perception or of action.
>
> The vague primitives by Anna W. are an example of a
vague starting
> set that is common to infants around the world. But AW
would agree
> with Mark (and Kant) that no formal definition is
possible *or*
> desirable. Any such definition would destroy their
flexibility.
>
> John
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202
4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
(preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J