- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:48:11 -0500
- To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com
- Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <253e738a-d624-811b-1d6c-c58e9b08bdb9@verizon.net>
Paola, I took a look to see if I could make sense of DOLCE (in StratML format) but what I see at http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/D18.pdf is a bit more than I'd like to take on right now. It would be nice if they shared their knowledge in a more usable format, to avoid imposing needless overhead on folks like us. Although it is not very socially responsible to force viewers to scroll, I also took a look at page 64 of Leo Orbst's book <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>. While it is image format from which text cannot be copied (reused), which is another socially irresponsible practice, I see that CL is "XML compliant". So I guess that answers your question. I also took a look at your third reference <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-89778-1_12> concerning "Logic-Based Regulatory Conformance Checking." Since only two pages can be viewed (which is more than I care to see anyway), I'm not entirely sure what they're talking about. However, I'd take their assertion that "the translation of regulation to logic should proceed one sentence at a time" a step further and suggest that each logically separable element should be discretely tagged, e.g., the elements of the StratML core. More broadly speaking, however, a key point is that we have far too much regulatory "guidance" in narrative format and far too few actual performance plans (and reports) in open, standard, machine-readable format, like StratML Part 2. As the saying <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/when_you%27re_up_to_your_neck_in_alligators,_it%27s_hard_to_remember_that_your_initial_objective_was_to_drain_the_swamp> goes, it is hard to drain the swamp when you're up to your neck in alligators (as in the pond in our backyard here on HHI). Shall we begin to drain the swamp? Why is it that supposedly smart people make it so hard for other to understand what they think they know? Makes one wonder how smart they really are, particularly if one considers wisdom to encompass the efficient and effective realization of one's objectives. Owen On 1/11/2020 12:08 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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 <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 >> >> >> >>
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2020 19:48:20 UTC