Re: stratml vs cl

Thank you
relation between stratml and cl=cojoin/association
I am sure these relations could be specified further (now sweating)
but this may help to explain


On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 1:12 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
wrote:

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