[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Rule Interchange Format group

To: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:42:18 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGOEDFHAAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

One knows that the government FRPs are designed to fund projects that meet
objective criterion such as the one which is the focus of this paper.  In
fact one knows the game, the contractors write the specifications and create
some technical something that no one else would adopt or that is
propriatory.  Guess who gets the funding?  The absence of oversight in the
DHS contracts is an active area of investigation by a subcommittee of the
house and by Richard Skinner, IG DHS.  The practice of using hard AI type
criterion to lock in funding is extensive.  (This is a claim)  The problem
is that very few of those here really still support hard AI.    The paper    (01)

http://www.sandsoft.com/edoc2004/HartEmeryDLCoreMDSW.pdf#search='a    (02)

referenced by Rick starts out with the sentences:  "Ontologies are often
captured in knowledge representation (KR) languages that hace come out of
the AI community.  These languages are often structured after a grounding in
these formalisms, which supports machine interpretation (reasoning).  . . .    (03)

Clearly "AI" is being used here to market the ODM (Object Data Model - I
think).   And clearly the paper is a delieverable that reduces the likely
hood that Topic Maps woudl be adopted for integrating diverse data models.
The OMG group's position is well understood and consistant.    (04)

You said:    (05)

"The field will
flounder aimlessly until knowledge of logic is as fundamental to its
practitioners as the calculus is to aerospace engineers."    (06)

but again the assumption here is that logic is relevant to ontological
modeling in precisely the same way as logic is relevant to the engineered
system models.  Of course it is essential in some places.  But we need
ontology to be available with and without the first order logics.    (07)

This is precisely where there is a legitimate dispute.    (08)

We do feel that this discussion is important, since there are some within
the reading group who are expressing agreement with the position that logic
and concept specification should be separatable.    (09)

I again note that the implication is often drawn, John Sowa drew it about a
mouth ago and Chris is drawing it now; that failure to agree that logic is
the core criterion for knowledge representation is the same as ignorance of
logic.    (010)

I appreciate Chris letting me get away with the implication I make that the
Industries are not interested in solving core problems because the problems
(unsolved) themselves lead to funding.  Solve the problem and the funding
goes away.  I know that it is not that simple.    (011)

Can we get back to testing John's approach and placing a mininmal smallest
ontology out in public view so that we can begin the build a lattice of
ontologies?    (012)

SUMO grew large, from 300 odd concepts to over 1000, if my information is
correct.  The gas and oil Part 1 that Gary has worked on must be less that
300 concepts.  Is this correct?    (013)

I have not looked at IFF, but I am interesting to see if it can be used
without logic.    (014)

Starting now, or Jan 1st; I will be acquiring the tool set (again) to look
at ontologies so that we can test the various ones that exist, after
separating the logic.  We are looking for controlled vocabulary that mapps
to sets of concept specification and to a separate data code structure such
as one finds in Rosetta Net and/or UDEF (uniform data element framework).    (015)

I will also be looking at ISO 13250 (Topic Maps) and other standards where
concepts are expressed without logical apperatus.    (016)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (017)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>