Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

Hello Paul,

to sum up:

Computation must be good for something - otherwise we would not be surrounded
by computers. We have different opinion wether it is easier to get a majority
of people to adapt to the "stupidity" of computers or the other way round.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:27:28PM -0500, Paul Tyson wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 20:35 +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> > Hello Paul,
> > 
> > > > Can you express this argument with triples?
> > [...]
> > >RDF(S) alone is unsuited for this, by design. It lacks negation and
> > >quantification.
> > 
> > It has existential quantification but lacks negation and a scope mechanism
> > for both to be full first order logic.
> > 
> > > Furthermore, traditional logic takes a different approach to argument from 
> > > the the mathematical logic notion of proof.
> > 
> > I do not know what you mean with "traditional logic" and take it to mean
> > "forms of cognition exhibited by humans".
> > 
> 
> Not at all. I mean the instruments of knowledge known, developed, and
> employed by thinkers (in the Western tradition) at least since
> Aristotle: in classical education, the subjects traditionally covered in
> the trivium, particularly logic. See for an introduction Joseph, "The
> Trivium: the liberal arts of logic, grammar, and rhetoric".
> 
> > > It should be possible to build for this purpose an RDF vocabulary and
> > > conventions for use (in the manner of SKOS and OWL).
> > 
> > OWL is more than a RDF vocabulary. It is a semantic extension of RDF.
> > With a normal RDF/RDFS/OWL vocabulary, you are stuck with the semantics and 
> > entailment regime of RDF/RDFS/OWL.
> > 
> > You can escape that without defining a semantic extension by adding additional
> > semantics via the comments of your vocabulary terms and use a rule engine
> > instead of or in addition to a reasoner to enforce it.
> > 
> > But if it would be easy to 
> > 
> > 1) Define a formal system reproducing forms of cognition exhibited by humans
> > 
> > 2) Define a universal vocabulary (to rule them all)
> > 
> > Artificial Intelligence would not be where it is now. In fact, many researchers
> > have adopted the stance that absolute word senses do not make sense (e.G. [1]).
> > I tend to agree with them.
> 
> I am not suggesting artificial anything. I am suggesting
> machine-assisted knowledge transmission. The author notates his
> concepts, propositions, and arguments in some standard notation. The
> reader uses a knowledge browser that not only reads the author's logical
> notations, but allows merging and adding of further propositions to
> affirm or deny the author's conclusions.
> 
> > 
> > IMO, any system of the form you are describing can never be universal and
> > will only be useful for some narrow task. It also seems that what machines can
> > do with natural language is quickly catching up with what machines can do with 
> > formal languages.
> 
> When machines can process (for example) the exercises in Joseph's book
> given to them in natural language, then of course we will not need any
> special markup or notation. Until then, they need some assistance.
> 
> (Of course, if they could understand from natural language input what is
> a title and what is paragraph, what is a reference and what is a foreign
> word, etc., we wouldn't need XML or HTML either. Stupid machines!)
> 
> Regards,
> --Paul
> 

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel