[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] Rule Interchange Format group

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: richard murphy <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:20:05 -0500
Message-id: <43A4AB35.8040701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Paul S Prueitt wrote:
> 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.    (01)

Once again, *stunned silence* Paul, take your beef off this list. You're 
outside the charter of this Working Group. You have nothing to 
contribute and you're a charlatan with an agenda.    (02)

BTW - Thanks for making the rest of us all seem normal, we'll take up a 
collection in your honor ...    (03)

> 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
> http://www.sandsoft.com/edoc2004/HartEmeryDLCoreMDSW.pdf#search='a
> 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).  . . .
> 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.
> You said:
> "The field will
> flounder aimlessly until knowledge of logic is as fundamental to its
> practitioners as the calculus is to aerospace engineers."
> 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.
> This is precisely where there is a legitimate dispute.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
> 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?
> I have not looked at IFF, but I am interesting to see if it can be used
> without logic.
> 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).
> I will also be looking at ISO 13250 (Topic Maps) and other standards where
> concepts are expressed without logical apperatus.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki: 
>     (04)

Best wishes,    (05)

Rick    (06)

email:  rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web:    http://www.rickmurphy.org
cell:   703-201-9129    (07)

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    (08)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>