- From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:52:17 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hello Pat, All,
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>> Why not? I don't see any fundamental problem.
>
> Well, the very idea of a statistical ensemble is way more complicated than
> anything any ontology language semantics is able to deal with. You would
> need at least arithmetic to describe this, surely.(?)
Arithmetic can be described by ontologies. But for starters, before
we have an ontology that describes all this, let us have one that is
at least compatible with this.
> We humans do this all the time, yes, and not just in technical areas but
> also in daily life. But machines are not very good at this kind of
> cross-domain elision. In fact, they can hardly do it at all. Notice that if
> this kind of reasoning were ubiquitous, sameAs would be close to
> meaningless.
Obviously, being the same as is different from being isomorphic to.
> I understand. However, speaking now as an ontology engineer, I would not
> advise anyone to attempt to formalize all this in anything remotely like OWL
> or even full first-order logic.
What would you do?
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
BioPAX Integration at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/biopax)
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2009 20:52:52 UTC