Re: stratml vs cl

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
>
>
>
>
>