Re: stratml vs cl

Owen, I did not find in your replies confirmation as to whether
stratML  adheres to/conforms to/supports Cl,  has this evaluation been
done, or is it assumed/inferred?

I think it can make a difference as to  our confidence in using stratl as
the basis for the representation that needs to be parsed by machine

Milton and all:
Aristotle said: “*To say* of what is that it is not, or of what is not that
it is, is false, while *to say* of what is that it is, and of what is not
that it is not, is *true*  :-)

logical consistency is achieved when statements are true :-)
To say that something is logically consistent when it
is not, is false
 :-)


On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Milton
>
> Your post is not logically consistent :-)
>
> could you please clarify or rectify some of the statements
>
> you"wrote:
>
> Thank you Dave for mentioning logical consistency. When you leave out the
>> word logical it becomes consistency which is the key factor in any domain
>> of discourse on science.
>>
>
> Er.... Nope
> I  mentioned 'logical consistency'in reply
> to David question as to whether formalization is necessary.
> (Then Dave mentioned it again in his response)
>
>
>> Biological systems indeed do NOT use logic,
>>
>
> the may do but their language /representation is not like
> human language.
>
>>
>> And Dave is right, for practical applications we need only use category
>> theory, conceptual structures.
>>
> Milton, where did Dave say this?
>
> :-)
>
> Thanks
> PDM
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 10 Jan 2020, at 04:16, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Is a formal KR really needed?  There is no evidence that biological
>> systems use formal KR as opposed to other forms of computation.
>>
>>
>> This is an important question. It would probably require an essay, for
>> which I do not have time.
>> I ll try to be very brief
>> - what doe we mean by formal?  (different levels of formalization?)
>> - I think what we need is enough formality to support
>> a) logic /reasoning
>> b)robustness/repeatability/reliability consistency
>> c) verifiability/proof that a) is correct to some extent
>>
>> I gave a talk once that was aiming to say natural language is
>> sufficiently formal
>> to enable abc, but not sure I fully managed to put my point across as
>> crisply as i would have liked
>> workshop page
>> http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/events/network-analysis/
>> My slides
>>
>> http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/events/network-analysis/slides/dimaio-analysis.pdf
>>
>>
>> (I am indebted to Sowa for explaining this at length on ontolog forum)
>>
>> Regarding biological systems, we really dont know enough, I d say and
>> biological systems
>> may use different forms of communication than language as we know it
>> until we evolve to communicate without language, some degree of
>> formalization may be necessary/beneficial
>>
>> The crux for me is consistency. ability to express intent and to follow
>> through and verify it ETC
>> for this we normally require some degree of formalization. but if you can
>> find a way Dave to achieve logical consistency without formalization I d be
>> very interested
>> :-)
>>
>>
>> Whilst there is general agreement on the value of graph representations,
>> Industry is showing a lot more interest in Property Graphs than in RDF.
>> This has two corollaries: the first is that Property Graphs are allegedly
>> easier to work with, and the second is that formal semantics and logical
>> deduction (at centre stage for the Semantic Web) are not important for the
>> majority of industry use cases.
>>
>> As you hinted at, logical consistency can be considered in terms
>> of robustness, repeatability, reliability and consistency over use cases of
>> interest.  Learning is about adapting to new use cases which don’t quite
>> fit the existing model.  An example is extending data types for people’s
>> names to allow for accented characters in people’s names, or to allow for
>> more than one family name (as is the case in Spain).  Today, adding support
>> for such extensions involves contacting the IT department, as the semantics
>> are implicit in the data queries embedded in application code, and hence
>> require talking with programmers to make the changes.
>>
>> Natural language semantics are established through usage by a community
>> of language speakers. The meanings often change over time as new patterns
>> of usage appear. Trying to formalise this would be both challenging and
>> rather futile.  A better plan is to model how people learn new meanings
>> from what they read and hear in conversations with other people or through
>> listening to media. Formal languages have a role to play where the context
>> is clearly defined and relatively static. However, for AI, those conditions
>> typically don’t hold.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>> W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>