Sorry to burden the rest of
you with this, but can't find the base email.
Pat, please drop me a
individual email. I have a question about the account
settings.
Thanks,
Dee K. Barnett CSM (R)
Contractor, ASRC Communications
Intelligence Center Counter IED Team
Directorate of Doctrine
US Army Intelligence Center
Comm: 520-538-1182
DSN: 879-1182
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on
behalf of Cassidy, Patrick J.
Sent: Mon 11/28/2005 06:23
To:
ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Neutrality
Principle
Roy et al.
I have created a Wiki page:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CosmoWG/CosmoContext
.
. . where we can put proposals on how to handle context. I have
added
to it a straw-man proposal for a general category of context that
can subsume
all individual contexts or combinations, including time and
place. Feel
free to comment or add other proposals, on that page. We
can post
periodic updates to the general list when additions are made
or agreements
are reached on specific points there.
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: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Roy Roebuck
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 7:36 AM
To:
ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Neutrality
Principle
Hi Pat:
I'd like to pursue the context topic in
another Wiki. I originally
called my general ontology approach "context
management", and is based
on identifying, characterizing, and managing the
context of functions,
processes, events, transactions,
etc.
Roy
-----Original Message-----
From:
ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Cassidy,
Patrick J.
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:01
AM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Neutrality
Principle
Context is essential but complex, and would probably require a
separate
discussion, perhaps a project of its own. As far as the
UF is
concerned, I would imagine that the initial effort would assume
what
Cyc calls "consensus reality", since we are talking about finding
the
maximum ontological structure that can be agreed on without
significant
contention. Contexts can be an add-on to that kind of
simple
structure. In fact, in the first layer of the UF I would have a
class
called "Context" which would subsume all the different kinds of
context
that could be used in reasoning.
If anyone is interested in
pursuing a discussion on context per se, I
could create a Wiki page where we
can build a coherent logical
structure and associated discussion.
Proposed representations could
then be used in a formal system to test
them.
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:
ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Barry Smith
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 1:42 AM
To:
ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Neutrality
Principle
Cory suggests that we introduce a new layer to our ontology
work: the
layer of context. (This is analogous to the Semantic Web idea that
we
separate out ontologies into walled-off zones called namespaces,
though
seemingly more difficult, since namespaces are just a matter
of syntax;
Cory's contexts seem to be something more complicated.)
Three problems
then arise:
1. in addition to building the ontology (or ontologies),
which is
hard, we would need to build also a theory (or theories) of
contexts
on a level on top of that, which is even harder
2. even if we
have a good theory of contexts, and even if we can fit
all our ontologies
neatly into contexts (perhaps into different
contexts at different times), we
would still need to find a way of
unifying the ontologies themselves, at the
ground level, in ways
which will make them interoperable -- but this means
finding out what
stands up, ontologically, independently of context
3.
would we then need also a second-level theory of the context(s) in
which the
theory of contexts itself is formulated/expressed? and a
third-level theory
for the contexts in which this second level theory
is
formulated?
Certainly, the ontology of ordinary speech acts is itself a
good
candidate (low-hanging fruit) for what might be included in
a
ground-level ontology; but not, please, an ontology of those speech
acts
which are used by a certain very small and very specialized
community when it
talks about ontologies.
BS
At 07:12 AM 11/28/2005, you
wrote:
>John,
>Ok, now imagine a small hour glass spinning over my
head, absorbing
all the
>references on this thread takes a
while!
>
>In the mean time, there are two points where we were
not
communicating. The
>"modular" I was thinking of was in terms
of a family of related
Ontologies,
>or perhaps micro-theories (I will
switch to that phrase). In the
framework
>I was imagining, the
context represented by the micro theory
parameterizes
>the axioms. I
think I understand your use of "module" to be individual
>"engines", each
with a small ontology, interacting with others -
essentially
>an agent
like system.
>
>Point 2; there is an ontology of speech acts (which
is quite
interesting)
>but there are also the speech acts about the
Ontologies (or micro
theories)
>themselves - which may provide some of
the parameters for computation
based
>on context. To use your
example, controlling a bus, airplane, mars
rover
>provide a situational
context for the axioms specific to that vehicle.
The
>speech act about
the set of Ontologies also provides context and
thereby
>selects what
axioms are applicable.
>
>If our UF provided for parameterizing
micro-theories by context it
would
>then be able to admit seemingly
incompatible macro-theories.
>
>I understand the complexities that
such parameterization causes for
engines,
>but perhaps we can find a
tractable subset of unconstrained model
>non-monotonic logics that would
suffice. Something like applying the
>parameterization prior to the
inference?
>
>-Cory
>
>Ps; An odd example of the speech
act mess; Lets say we are charged
with
>specifying a "current state"
"future state" architecture, each of
course has
>the appropriate speech
act. <architecture 1> is stated to represent
the
>current
enterprise. <architecture 2> is stated to be a specification
of
how
>the enterprise will operate at point in time "C". Now add to
this a
>future-state architecture done five years ago - this does not,
of
course,
>correspond to how the future actually worked out.
<Architecture C> is
>stated to be an unrealized plan for timeframe B
done in timeframe A.
Speech
>act E - what is the difference between
these architectures?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:45
PM
>To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
>Subject: Re: [ontac-forum]
Neutrality Principle
>
>Cory,
>
>Before getting into the
details of your note, I'd
>like to emphasize the point that the the idea
of
>concentrating on vocabularies for UF and minimizing
>the
detailed axioms is only part of the story. I
>definitely do *not*
advocate throwing away axioms.
>But I believe that putting them into a
single monolithic
>lump is too inflexible. Even Cyc has subdivided
the
>axioms in multiple microtheories, but there's more
>structure
needed for interactions among modules.
>
> > Similar to
your suggestion of modularity, perhaps
> > the common framework
is itself modular in such a way
> > that conflict is explicitly
allowed for between its
> > modules. There is a tendency to
think of these systems
> > monolithic statements of Truth, and
while some have had
> > that intent, it may not be necessary for
our purposes.
>
>Yes, I very strongly agree.
>
>
> If we instead think of each of these ontological modules
> >
as "speech act"(s), an assertion by an individual, group
> > or
authority at a particular time. We can have a framework
> >
for dealing with a system of these modules that may or may
> >
not be in conflict.
>
>Yes. Inferencing and information flow
are related, but
>they have different requirements. In
communication, the
>most prominent features are the speech acts and
vocabulary.
>I published an article that emphasized speech acts
and
>their relationship to
modularity:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/arch.htm
>
Architectures for Intelligent Systems
>
>This article was strongly
influenced by John McCarthy's
>Elephant 2000 language, which is based on
speech acts.
>The article introduces the Flexible Modular Framework
(FMF),
>in which interacting modules pass messages among
themselves,
>each one with a tag that indicates the speech act.
For
>McCarthy's original paper on Elephant,
see
>
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elephant/elephant.html
>
Elephant 2000: A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts
>
>A
quotation from that article: "Human speech acts
involve
>intelligence. Elephant 2000 is on the borderline of AI, but
the
>article emphasizes Elephant usages that do not require
AI."
>
>My colleague Arun Majumdar implemented a version of the
FMF
>while he was living in Palo Alto and had a number of
discussions
>with McCarthy about Elephant, speech acts, and related
issues
>of logic and reasoning.
>
> > The speech act
asserting a set of statements forms one dimension
> > of context
for those statements. A set of statements is valid
> >
within a context. There are, of course, other forms of
context
> > such as authorities/political, physical or
situational. All can
> > govern how and when statements
within that context are to be
treated.
>
>The word "context" has
many senses. The speech act indicates the
>purpose of the
communication: tell, ask, command, promise, commit,
>authorize,
deny, etc. The basic three -- tell, ask, command --
>have been
implemented in computer languages for years, but the
>others are important
for on-line business transactions.
>
>Another sense of context
involves the subject matter, which brings
>in specialized axioms or
programs that deal with the information
>content of the
message. The kind of axioms required depend on
>both the
subject matter and the speech act. One of the basic
>principles of
the FMF is that a module should be able to determine
>quickly whether it
is capable of handling a message, and if not,
>where to send
it.
>
> > Using something like wordnet makes a lot of sense
for informal
> > (but still useful) connections, but I don't see
how it works
> > for formal ones.
>
>You can think of
the modules as having different levels of expertise.
>Some modules may be
highly specialized, and others could behave
>like a receptionist, who
isn't an expert in anything, but who
>knows enough about the subject to
route a message to another module
>that can handle it. The FMF also
supports various blackboards, on
>which a module can post messages that
are retrieved associatively
>by other modules that are looking for things
to do.
>
>Inside a module, there might be a highly specialized and
optimized
>program, or there could be an inference engine that does
reasoning,
>which could transform a message and generate new messages for
other
>modules. So even for the same subject domain, different
modules
>could have different axioms (or compiled programs) that do
different
>things.
>
>This approach does not rule out
monolithic systems, if they are
>needed -- you could take all of Cyc, put
a wrapper around it,
>and it would look like a module. But you could
also split the
>microtheories or other axioms into different modules that
would
>deal with specialized subjects in specialized
ways.
>
> > Given such contextual modules you can determine
what modules are
> > in conflict with others, and perhaps provide
logic to reduce or
> > eliminate the root causes. (For example,
the assumption that time
> > is the same for all participants -
which works just fine in the
> > context of earth systems but not
in the context of space flight).
>
>That's an example where
different modules could use the same
>vocabulary about space and time, but
different sets of axioms
>for reasoning about them. Even for travel,
you need different
>axioms and ways of thinking about driving a bus,
guiding a
>Martian rover, sailing a ship, running a railroad, or
planning
>a space mission. One set of axioms definitely does not
fit
>all applications, even when there is a lot of common
vocabulary.
>
> > Almost all human abstractions seem to be
highly contextual, yet
> > most logics don't have the mechanisms
to deal with it due to
> > the monotonic
restrictions.
>
>I certainly agree. OWL, for example, is an
extremely limited logic,
>which doesn't even support full FOL. It
might be adequate to handle
>the limited kinds of axioms needed for
WordNet, but certainly not
>for nonmonotonic, modal, higher-order logics
that interface with
>programs that do specialized
computation.
>
> > One of the goals for this is to have a
wider net for capturing
> > knowledge, much of which is expressed
in ways that are imprecise,
> > lacking in detail and
contradictory.
>
>Knowledge acquisition, design, problem
specification, and many
>related issues involve very different issues that
are orthogonal
>to the communication/inferencing dichotomy. That is
one more
>reason for breaking up the system into multiple interacting
modules,
>each with different kinds and levels of
expertise.
>
> > So, in summary, can we find a way to
"admit all" instead of
> > least-common denominator by applying
context to statements as
> > speech acts from various communities
or authorities?
>
>I believe that it's possible, and I also believe
that a monolith
>is not sufficiently flexible to handle the job.
Modules, along
>the lines we are discussing are a prerequisite, but
there's still
>a lot of R & D to do in order to determine the best way
to divide
>up various tasks among interacting
modules.
>
>John
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinati
ngWG
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinati
ngWG
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
g
WG
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|