To: | "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@xxxxxx>, Robert O'Harrow <oharrowr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
From: | "psp" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:18:05 -0700 |
Message-id: | <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGAEBKGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Gary,
your note, just posted, suggests that convergence is perhaps the most
critical aspect of the work of the working group.
My
position suggests that the working group should move away from a specific notion
that "machine intelligence" should be part of (the next round of) core
ontological infrastructure. An alternative is suggested.
My
argument is that controlled vocabularies should be observed using semantic
extraction technology and then stood up as the foundation to machine like web
services based on the observed use of language (within communities of
practice).
But in
doing so, the "system (those who develop the core)" must be aware of its power
to control and inhibit innovation and diversity of viewpoint. (This
seems like a simple objective and is within the mission statement of this
working group.) The Roadmap for semantic technology adoption that I
produced for US Customs goes into great detail on how ten technologies available
in the market today could be integrated , within three months, at a cost of less
than 1 M. The resulting system would be consistent with what I argue
for.
The
issue is complex. What I mean by "machine intelligence" does
not preclude advanced pattern recognition programs from computing with the
elements of a controlled vocabulary.
It
does preclude messy inference logics such as what have become attached to RDF
when OIL was added to produce OWL (Ontology Web Language). I suggest that
this attachment of inference logic to the RDF statement compounded an error made
by RDF in treating the graph as a tree.
[ ** Let me be clear here. A graph is a set of triples
{ < a, r, b > } where a and b are nodes and r is the
connector. The RDF triple makes the a and b "ontologically
distinguished". The RDF triple requires that the a be a subject, the r be
a verb and the b be a predicate. This is useful for the purpose of
introducing predicate logics, AND for writing data into a tree structure in the
computer. However, the more general construction is the graph having
the form { < a, r, b > } . This form leans itself to data
encoding using a keyless hash table invented, and patented, by Bjorn
Gruenwald in 1996. The more general construction does not have to be
aligned with predicate logic, but can be quite easily aligned to be compatible
with RDF/OWL. ** ]
I
claim that the leading (and only) RDF/OWL editor, Protege, is unstable, the
developers of Protege are constantly making revisions that do not support
systems developed over the past months. Simple things like import and
export of information cannot be done reliably.
I
claim that the problem is beyond the ability of computer science to
solve. I suggest that deductive mechanisms cannot meet the
requirement of real world needs by US Customs or any other large organization
that has to deal with the real world in real time. The argument is
specific, detailed and grounded in a scholarly literature.
The
BFO
is an
example of the use of a controlled vocabulary that is derived from
"a set of observations by a specific group of individuals"
about
the words and semantic used in the scientific literatures. Barry Smith's
work on this has many, in my opinion, excellent aspects; including a definition
of "methodology"
Realism
Fallibilism
Perspectivalism
Adequatism
and a
set of relationships (which can be extended by the scientific
community)
And
BFO defines two small ontology schema (set of "concepts"), one for representing
static knowledge, <snap>, and one for process knowledge
<span>.
But..... there is a significant literature about the response
degeneracy that all living processes exhibit in the normal course of
_expression_. I have not seen how this normal and common element of
processes can be represented using the BFO. I would like to test the set
of proposed relationships to see if this set allows me to talk about Gerald
Edelman's work (a noble Prize winner in Immunology).
The
discussion could move in the direction of extending the set of relationships,
and in refining this set of relationships in the present of scientific peer
review.
The
set of relationships specified in
are
<(within organizational scale <snap,snap> and <span,span>
relationships>
part to whole relationship (i think there is a class of these
relationships)
<snap independent,span>
participation
perpetration
Initiation
perpetuation
termination
facilitation
hindrance, prevention
mediation
patience
<snap dependant ,span>
realization
initiation
termination
<span, snap> relationships between processes and
substances
creation
sustaining in being
degradation
Projections
temporal projection
spatial projection
I hope
I made no mistype. These set of relationships is an ontology in both the
sense of being a set of concepts and a referent to reality.
The
point being is whether these concepts / referents are sufficient to express the
science of biology without imposing a specific set of basis on the science
community using this set of concepts ? Is "intelligence design" for
example inhibited by the requirement that authors publish consistant with the
BOF? (I do not think so, but it is a legitimate question.
Yes?)
Most
of the work here is in regard to satisfying some funding source, or in the
technical issues related to the computer science. Thus the work is shaped
by funding and computer science more than science.
My
voice is about the restrictions or benefits that will come to the science
community when controlled vocabularies and ontological models are required for
publication and tenure.
*****
On a different matter
There
is a position that some views are not considered.
John
Sowa has forwarded his views to me and has included a statement from one of the
participants - whose position argues that I should not be allowed to post to the
forum.
I am
happy to not make anymore posts if the majority of those in the working group
who wish to vote will ask this of me. So please vote - but do it
publicly.
*****
*****
John's
notes was posted in my web log at:
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/ To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (01) |
Previous by Date: | [ontac-forum] A suggestion for ontological discussions at ONTAC meetings., Gary Berg-Cross |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [ontac-forum] Off-topic postings, Cassidy, Patrick J. |
Previous by Thread: | [ontac-forum] A suggestion for ontological discussions at ONTAC meetings., Gary Berg-Cross |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontac-forum] A suggestion for ontological discussions at ONTAC meetings., Nicolas F Rouquette |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |