Hi Chris, Patrick D. & All (except Paul): (01)
CM> **Technical note: As it happens, the set of criteria used to assess what
> they call expressiveness there is an amalgam of expressiveness in the
> purely logical sense -- which, very roughly put, is used to situate
> where a given logic stands vis-a-vis first-order logic -- and also what
> might be called "built-in" expressiveness, which has to do with the
> semantic primitives that a KR framework includes, e.g., classes, or
> numbers, and how much one can say about them in that framework. Both
> types of expressiveness can be measured in rigorous and well-understood
> ways using the tools of modern mathematical logic. (02)
yep, this is definitely baked into the ODM analysis and it's important
to read the whole recipe. I'm shopping for all the ingredients here: (03)
http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/metalevel/lower/ontology/ontology/version20021205.htm (04)
Chris, any other good references to how to unravel the "built-in"
expressiveness? I suspect this is off the radar screen for W3C rules
folks, but yes it's important as we develop the UF. (05)
Before we were distracted, I asked an important question that should
reveal another important principle of our UF. (06)
RM > So, if we accept your assertion Chris, that TopicMaps are
underpowered for a RIF, shouldn't we also ask what it means to be
sufficiently powered and overpowered; and under what conditions an
infomorphism respects local logics in a distributed system? (07)
Chris, I'm hoping we hear back from Patrick D. with a counter example to
your assertion. Using information flow speak, I can imagine some rules
engine executing a sound and complete local logic in a proximal
classification with constraints on types and normal tokens connected
through the channel to a distal classification. Then again the counter
to the counter is: the closer the local logic is to the complete theory
of the system, the more information flows. (08)
But Patrick might argue something different ... (09)
BTW - By the time you've read this I've instructed the aliens to abduct
Paul so we can get on with the great work of this community. Actually,
the aliens are really government agents disguised as aliens - who ever
woulda' thunk - plausible deniability works every time. But I'll never
admit it 'cause I'm part of the conspiracy. ;) (010)
--
Best wishes, (011)
Rick (012)
email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
cell: 703-201-9129 (013)
Chris Menzel wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:22:44PM -0700, Paul S Prueitt wrote:
>
>>One point of the previous discussion is that one wanted a
>>specification of concepts without the first order logic.
>>
>>Your ranking of best practices, in line with the Industries that are
>>dedicated to obtaining contracts with the government for IT services,
>>is to rank Topic Maps at the bottom because it does not make the
>>mistake of entangling complicated and often non-sensical "logic" into
>>the ontology.
>
>
> A revealing comment, to be sure. Evidently, you interpreted the ranking
> in question along the lines of someone's "Top Ten" list, as if it were a
> subjective assessment of KR languages according some arbitrary list of
> qualitative, unscientific, and untestable criteria. Quite to the
> contrary, as Rick noted, the list was determined relative to a wholly
> objective set of logical and semantic features, and the ranking was
> determined by the extent to which a KR framework possessed those
> features.** The result was an objective, verifiable, and scientifically
> meaningful ranking that an ontological engineer could use in assessing
> the propriety of the KR languages in the list relative to a certain KR
> task -- a nice, simple example of the power of logic in ontological
> engineering. Without such "complicated entanglements", one's choice of
> a KR language for the task in question could only be grounded in
> hearsay, hearty recommendations, intuition, and cultural lore -- the
> stuff of good anthropology perhaps, but hardly a foundation for a
> nascent engineering science.
>
> More generally (and, beware, even more soapboxy ;-) -- Ontological
> engineering, like cognitive science, is an amalgam of a number of
> disciplines, but knowledge representation lies at its core, and the core
> of KR is logic. Anyone who endeavors to be involved in ontology
> development at almost any level but who has not mastered the
> fundamentals of mathematical logic is simply out of his or her depth,
> and is no more prepared to engage in the activity than someone who
> endeavors to build a suspension bridge or a rocket ship with no
> knowledge of Newtonian physics and the calculus. The field will
> flounder aimlessly until knowledge of logic is as fundamental to its
> practitioners as the calculus is to aerospace engineers. Until then it
> will be caught up in a morass of pseudo-problems and distracted by
> endless, irrelevant philosophical windbaggery.
>
>
>>This is like saying, well I am no expert on Buddhism, but the guy that
>>founded it must have been off his rocker.
>
>
> It's hard to tell, but I guess you are referring to my admission that I
> am no expert on Topic Maps. That is true, my somewhat limited study of
> the area would not qualify me as an expert, but because I do understand
> logic and set theory, I am able to read and understand the technical
> documents that describe the logical and semantic foundations of Topic
> Maps and get a good sense of their connections to other KR frameworks.
> This is a skill that anyone working on KR frameworks should possess.
> Without it, the practice of ontology amounts to little more than
> subjective and unscientific philosophical chatter.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
> **Technical note: As it happens, the set of criteria used to assess what
> they call expressiveness there is an amalgam of expressiveness in the
> purely logical sense -- which, very roughly put, is used to situate
> where a given logic stands vis-a-vis first-order logic -- and also what
> might be called "built-in" expressiveness, which has to do with the
> semantic primitives that a KR framework includes, e.g., classes, or
> numbers, and how much one can say about them in that framework. Both
> types of expressiveness can be measured in rigorous and well-understood
> ways using the tools of modern mathematical logic.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|