- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:43:59 -0500
- To: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <e05fcab4-5ab5-a2a4-3f59-bb63720a2210@verizon.net>
This exchange prompted me to discover the online textbook entitled "Logic and Proof: Release 0.1," published a few weeks ago. It contains 39 references to the term "goal" -- a pretty obvious, logical connection to StratML. Its goals are now available in StratML format at http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#L+P At my advanced age, achieving them is probably well beyond my capabilities. Perhaps doing so might be a worthy endeavor for future generations who aren't required to work to live and, thus, have a lot of time on their "hands" (minds). On the other hand, it seems likely they may not need to do so -- because the process seems amenable to automation. By any chance, might that be what this group is really about? In any event, it would be good if we could flesh out not only our goals but also our stakeholders and performance indicators. Has anyone attempted to specify the common logic of OUR shared goal(s) and/or its (their) proof(s)? My StratML rendition is available at http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#AIKRCG One way or another, I will continue to do my best to make sense of human intentions and practical realities in terms that I can understand, in StratML format, including any practical results this group may generate. BTW, this thread also prompts recollection of Bart Kosko's treatise on fuzzy logic, which includes these assertions: "... math as a discipline does not fit the world it purports to describe" and "the public construction of meaning is the most important project of the next hundred years..." http://ambur.net/fuzz.pdf From my perspective, it seems that meaning is a function of shared values supported by the pursuit of common and complementary objectives. Owen On 1/13/2020 12:41 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote: > Thanks Owen > I do not think we should do things more complicated than necessary > I brought up the relation between stratml and CL because CL was > brought up in a post, and may not be a > bad idea to clarify the relation. In essence, I dont think a formal > verification of stratml is necessary > for what we are doing here, on the other hand, if we could establish > with a verification that stratml supports CL (which I am fairly sure > it does) then we could invest more energy, we may have a stronger case > we get to show our proof of concept/demo to some intelligence decision > maker > well informed intelligent decision makers are scarce, but we must > continue to hope that humanity evolves, and prepare ourselves for that > eventuality, no? > more answers below > > OWEN > > Paola, I took a look to see if I could make sense of DOLCE (in > StratML format) but what I see at > http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/D18.pdf is a bit more than > I'd like to take on right now. It would be nice if they shared > their knowledge in a more usable format, to avoid imposing > needless overhead on folks like us. > > I did not suggest a formal evaluation with DOLCE in this case, I > mentioned it as an example of model validation using a formal > ontology, which is something we could do, if we decide to, with > stratml/CL > > Although it is not very socially responsible to force viewers to > scroll, I also took a look at page 64 of Leo Orbst's book > <https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=cLKJhI0VkhEC&lpg=PA64&ots=ITCD6yI2F4&dq=xml%20compliance%20with%20common%20logic&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=xml%20compliance%20with%20common%20logic&f=false>. > While it is image format from which text cannot be copied > (reused), which is another socially irresponsible practice, I see > that CL is "XML compliant". So I guess that answers your question. > > nope :-) CL is XML compliant does not mean the opposite is > automtically true. needs verification. > > I also took a look at your third reference > <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-89778-1_12> > concerning "Logic-Based Regulatory Conformance Checking." Since > only two pages can be viewed (which is more than I care to see > anyway), I'm not entirely sure what they're talking about. > However, I'd take their assertion that "the translation of > regulation to logic should proceed one sentence at a time" a step > further and suggest that each logically separable element should > be discretely tagged, e.g., the elements of the StratML core. > > yes! I think the example in that paper can guide us if we decide for > stratml being good enough > the representation of compliance with rules (a policy) . If we can > get of that paper maybe we can use > it as a reference > > More broadly speaking, however, a key point is that we have far > too much regulatory "guidance" in narrative format and far too few > actual performance plans (and reports) in open, standard, > machine-readable format, like StratML Part 2. As the saying > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/when_you%27re_up_to_your_neck_in_alligators,_it%27s_hard_to_remember_that_your_initial_objective_was_to_drain_the_swamp> > goes, it is hard to drain the swamp when you're up to your neck in > alligators (as in the pond in our backyard here on HHI). > > //not important but only as clarification: Herfindahl-Hirschman Index > (*HHI*) /// > > Let's decide if we want to do some evaluation of stratml vs CL, if it > is not important > we could put it as a 'desirable thing to do when we have the resources' > > cheers > PDM > > > On 1/11/2020 12:08 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote: >> Thank you Owen >> >> I suppose if you dont understand my question, is that I have >> not been very clear :-) >> apologies >> Just to clarify, I am happy with stratml - so my question only >> came into existence >> because someone in a recent thread brough up CL. we have never had CL >> mentioned until now. since it is mentioned. I think we need to >> clarify its place in our world, >> we can do that easily - thus never wasting time on this again in >> the future - >> by simply clarifying its relation to stratML - which is the de >> fact KR we (you especially) are using/ since stratml seems to be >> ginning consensus in this group so far, we may wanto to continue >> use it and encode all our stuff with it - to CLE >> >> I have carried out model conformance evaluation using DOLCE in >> previous lives, but I dont have a fresh memory exactly of what >> method we used, I would have to look it up >> or even better, I may go find the guy who lead that effort and >> ask him to do it for stratml >> >> The bottom line is validity, and interoperability with other >> langugages, because CL >> is the common denominator for all machine languages (I hope) >> >> Read this chapter (reading page 64) by Leo to get a better >> explanation of what I am getting at: >> https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=cLKJhI0VkhEC&lpg=PA64&ots=ITCD6yI2F4&dq=xml%20compliance%20with%20common%20logic&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=xml%20compliance%20with%20common%20logic&f=false >> >> a simplified way to put it is: >> does the stratml schema allow/support valid logical inferences >> (I assume it does, but its worth to check) >> >> here is a paper that explains using logic to validate conformance >> (sorry it is behind a paywall but the abstract should be clear >> enough ) >> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-89778-1_12 >> >> I am tempted to as John Sowa and Leo Orbst. would that be ok? >> >> Either way, the value and usefulness of stratml would not be >> diminished >> but if CL is supported in stratml without reservations, then we >> can have more confidence perhaps >> >> PDM >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM Owen Ambur >> <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> >>> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett >>> W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of >>> things >>> >>> >>> >>>
Received on Monday, 13 January 2020 17:44:09 UTC