Re: stratml vs cl

Using STRATML is a [need / requirement / purpose/ objective / goal]
 structure that helps explain  what the AI service [supports / fulfills/
satisfies] . If the (strat)ML can  easily cojoin / be associated with a CL
declared (graph) description of that same AI service, a building block of
trust  can be established.

Carl

It was a pleasure to clarify


On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:29 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>