Re: stratml vs cl

Thanks Owen
I do not think we should do things more complicated than necessary
I brought up the relation between stratml and CL because CL was brought up
in a post, and may not be a
bad idea to clarify the relation. In essence, I dont think a formal
verification of stratml is necessary
for what we are doing here, on the other hand, if we could establish with a
verification that stratml supports CL (which I am fairly sure it does) then
we could invest more energy, we may have a stronger case we get to show our
proof of concept/demo to some intelligence decision maker
well informed intelligent decision makers are scarce, but we must continue
to hope that humanity evolves, and prepare ourselves for that eventuality,
no?
more answers below

OWEN

> 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.
>
I did not suggest a formal evaluation with DOLCE in this case, I mentioned
it as an example of model validation using a formal ontology, which is
something we could do, if we decide to, with
stratml/CL

> 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.
>
nope :-)  CL is XML compliant does not mean the opposite is automtically
true. needs verification.


> 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.
>
yes!  I think the example in that paper can guide us if we decide for
stratml being good enough
the representation of  compliance with rules (a policy) . If we can get of
that paper maybe we can use
it as a reference

> 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).
>
//not important but only as clarification:  Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (
*HHI*) ///

 Let's decide if we want to do some evaluation of stratml vs CL, if it is
not important
we could put it as a 'desirable thing to do when we have the resources'

cheers
PDM


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