Re: stratml vs cl

Thank you Owen

I suppose if you dont understand my question, is that I have
not been very clear :-)
apologies
Just to clarify, I am happy with stratml - so my question only came into
existence
because someone in a recent thread brough up CL. we have never had CL
mentioned until now. since it is mentioned. I think we need to clarify its
place in our world,
we can do that easily - thus never wasting time on this again in the future
-
by simply clarifying its relation to stratML - which is the de fact KR we
(you especially) are using/ since stratml seems to be ginning consensus in
this group so far, we may wanto to continue use it and encode all our stuff
with it - to CLE

I have carried out model conformance evaluation using DOLCE in previous
lives, but I dont have a fresh memory exactly of what method we used, I
would have to look it up
or even better, I may go find the guy who lead that effort and ask him to
do it for stratml

The bottom line is validity, and interoperability with other langugages,
because CL
is the common denominator for all machine languages (I hope)

Read this chapter (reading page 64)  by Leo to get a better explanation of
what I am getting at:
https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=cLKJhI0VkhEC&lpg=PA64&ots=ITCD6yI2F4&dq=xml%20compliance%20with%20common%20logic&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=xml%20compliance%20with%20common%20logic&f=false

a simplified way to put it is:
does the stratml schema allow/support valid  logical inferences
(I assume it does, but its worth to check)

here is a paper that explains using logic to validate conformance
(sorry it is behind a paywall but the abstract should be clear enough )
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-89778-1_12

I am tempted to as John Sowa and Leo Orbst. would that be ok?

Either way, the value and usefulness of stratml would not be diminished
but if CL is supported in stratml without reservations, then we
can have more confidence perhaps

PDM





On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:

> 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>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>