W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontolog invited speaker session - Dr. Mark Greaves on the Halo Project - Thu 2008.06.19

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:32:34 -0500
Message-Id: <p0623090bc48957bfafa4@[192.168.1.2]>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Cc: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, "'Adrian Walker'" <adriandwalker@gmail.com>, semanticweb@yahoogroups.com, 'public-semweb-lifesci hcls' <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, semantic_web@googlegroups.com, welty@watson.ibm.com, "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@micra.com>
At 9:44 AM -0400 6/26/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_037A_01C8D771.454BF020"
>Content-Language: en-us
>
>Pat -
>    Is there a logic defined somewhere that includes both types of 
>negation as logical operators?:  'NotProven' and 'ProventNot'?

Its certainly been suggested, and Im sure someone has defined it, but 
I don't have actual pointers.  But IMO this is a losing idea. First, 
classical negation isn't "provenNot", its just plain Not. Nothing in 
the negation truthtable says anything about provability. Second, NAF 
isn't a different connective, and trying to make it into one just 
gets everything muddled. If you use NAF, the conclusion you reach is 
properly expressed as a simple negation: "Joe" isn't in the list, so 
Joe is not an employee. That's ordinary classical negation in the 
conclusion. Whats special about NAF isn't the final assertion, its 
the way that you come to believe it (or, if you take the 
goal-directed ass-backwards view of most query or LP systems, its the 
way you set out to prove it.)

PatH

>
>Pat
>
>Patrick Cassidy
>MICRA, Inc.
>908-561-3416
>cell: 908-565-4053
>cassidy@micra.com
>
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net 
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net] On Behalf Of Pat 
>Hayes
>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:06 PM
>To: Adrian Walker
>Cc: semanticweb@yahoogroups.com; [ontolog-forum]; 
>public-semweb-lifesci hcls; semantic_web@googlegroups.com; 
>welty@watson.ibm.com
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontolog invited speaker session - 
>Dr. Mark Greaves on the Halo Project - Thu 2008.06.19
>
>At 8:37 PM -0400 6/25/08, Adrian Walker wrote:
>
>Hi John --
>
>
>Allow me to respond also.
>
>
>You wrote...
>
>It's important for us to develop Common Logic as the growth path
>for ontologies and to incorporate CL in the Semantic MediaWiki.
>
>Anything currently represented in either the Semantic Web notations
>or relational databases can be mapped to Common Logic.  And the
>more compact CL notation is vastly more efficient in storage space,
>transmission time, and computation time than the current Semantic
>Web notations.
>
>We should position CL as the foundation for Semantic Web 3.0.
>
>You may like therefore to address Chris Welty's point that CL 
>appears infeasible for the W3C rule interchange project.  In slide 
>11 of [1], Chris says:
>
>The CL and IKL approach [is] deprecated: infeasible for this group 
>[W3C Rule Interchange], as major differences appeared irreconcilable 
>(e.g. non-mon vs. mon)
>
>
>He is there referring to a particular approach, viz. to adopt a 
>highly expressive language into which all rule languages can be 
>translated, which was used in the IKRIS project which produced IKL. 
>If however you read on in the same slides, you will find that the 
>language finally adopted as the initial Rule standard, though much 
>weaker than CL, in fact is a classical logic with a classical 
>negation, just like negation in every other logic with a clear 
>semantics.
>
>
>The fundamental difficulty seems to be
>
>
>That isnt the fundamental difficulty for RIF.
>
>
>that CL and IKL have chosen a theoretical semantics for negation
>
>
>Its not especially 'theoretical'. It is simply what negation means 
>in ordinary language. If you say cows are white, and I say, No, cows 
>are brown; then my "no" says that what you said is false. That 
>simply is what negation means. This is a common-sense, 
>pre-theoretical notion of negation. So-called 'negation as failure' 
>is the theoretical notion, and it only arises from database theory. 
>The basic snag with negation as failure is that it is almost always 
>not valid. It is simply wrong. The cases where you can validly 
>infer, from a failure to prove P, that P is false, are extremely 
>rare. They only occur in specialized circumstances in specialized 
>tasks performed by specialists in certain limited cases. Can you 
>prove that every finite abelian group can be expressed as the direct 
>sum of cyclic subgroups of prime-power order? Answer quickly. 
>Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that you can't. Are you 
>justified in concluding that this is false? Maybe you had better 
>hedge your bets.
>
>
>from before the computer era, whereas SQL and most logic based 
>programming languages use a different meaning for negation -- one 
>that can also be formalized, e.g. as in [2].
>
>
>It can be formalized, for sure. It can in fact be formalized in many 
>different, incompatible, ways. All of them however make it vividly 
>clear that this is not a generally correct inference rule.
>
>Pat
>
>
>
>Thanks for your thought about this.
>
>                                        -- Adrian
>
>[1] 
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/ChrisWelty_20080612/W3C-Rules-Interchange-Format--ChrisWelty_20080612.ppt>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/ChrisWelty_20080612/W3C-Rules-Interchange-Format--ChrisWelty_20080612.ppt
>
>[2]  Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple
>   Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of 
>Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22
>
>Internet Business Logic
>A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over 
>SQL and RDF
>Online at <http://www.reengineeringllc.com>www.reengineeringllc.com 
>Shared use is free
>
>Adrian Walker
>Reengineering
>
>
>On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM, John F. Sowa 
><<mailto:sowa@bestweb.net>sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>
>Peter,
>
>Thanks for posting the audio for Mark Greaves talk.  I wasn't
>able to log in for the talk, but I read the slides.  The audio
>covers some important points that are not in the slides:
>
>
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_06_19>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_06_19
>
>The Semantic MediaWiki is very important work, and since it is
>available as open source, we should use it.
>
>But one important point that Mark mentioned is that the reasoning
>capabilities of current Semantic Web technology is very weak.
>RDF(S), OWL, SPARQL, and RuleML are useful, but weak subsets
>of Common Logic.
>
>It's important for us to develop Common Logic as the growth path
>for ontologies and to incorporate CL in the Semantic MediaWiki.
>
>Anything currently represented in either the Semantic Web notations
>or relational databases can be mapped to Common Logic.  And the
>more compact CL notation is vastly more efficient in storage space,
>transmission time, and computation time than the current Semantic
>Web notations.
>
>We should position CL as the foundation for Semantic Web 3.0.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: 
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: 
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: 
>mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net>ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net
>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: 
>mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
>
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC               (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>40 South Alcaniz St.       (850)202 4416   office
>Pensacola                 (850)202 4440   fax
>FL 32502                     (850)291 0667    cell
>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
>http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 14:33:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:52 GMT