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:
>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
>
>
> (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
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 (08)
|