Re: stratml vs cl

Paola, I assume the answer is probably no, but since I don't understand 
your question, I'm not sure.  Posing StratML in opposition to Common 
Logic (StratML v. CL) doesn't make any sense to me, but  I'll need to 
defer to those who are more conversant with CL.

No one is suggesting that StratML is a generic model for the 
representation of all knowledge to be parsed by machines, only that 
which pertains to the documentation of human objectives.

However, is not the facilitating the achievement of human objectives the 
purpose of knowledge and the "representation" thereof?  What might be 
the logic of other purposes?

Owen

On 1/10/2020 10:35 PM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>         http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>         W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things
>
>
>
>