Re: stratml vs cl

My post is logically consistent, I did not refer to David literally saying things, but his comments hinting at or implying certain things.
The European Union AI Expert Group diagram specifically mentions "percepts" and in the circle for reasoning/information processing and decision making we deal with conceptual structures for which StratML and CL obviously make sense.
And referring to the comment why it is so difficult for smart people to communicate ideas to each other, is because their perception of the reality they observe is determined by a scientific filter predetermined and shaped by their academic background and training.
The use of mathematics and in particular category theory sidesteps speaking in scientific dialects and helps focus and determine common logical, theoretical and thus computational frameworks.

Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development 

    On Friday, January 10, 2020, 10:23:32 PM EST, 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 replyto 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 likehuman language. 

And Dave is right, for practical applications we need only use category theory, conceptual structures. 
Milton, where did Dave say this?
:-)
ThanksPDM


 


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 /reasoningb)robustness/repeatability/reliability consistencyc) verifiability/proof that a) is correct to some extent
I gave a talk once that was aiming to say natural language is sufficiently formalto enable abc, but not sure I fully managed to put my point across as crisply as i would have likedworkshop pagehttp://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/events/network-analysis/  
My slideshttp://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 systemsmay use different forms of communication than language as we know ituntil 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 ETCfor 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