Re: a simple question

  [Bijan Parsia]
>  Sure, lots of semweb reasoning will be done by random Perl and Python 
> scripts (or fairly cheap prolog hacks). But there's some sort of 
> difference between acknowledging that and wanting to privilege "certain 
> kinds of processing mechanisms" for interoperability purposes. And 
> interop is somewhat the name of the game, I'm pretty sure.
> 
I'm not thinking of little scripts and stuff.  I'm thinking of big
black-box algorithms, such as heuristic programs for bidding in
combinatorial auctions.

> [snip nice paragraph that seems straight out of Critque of Pure Reason]
> 
> So, Drew, is there any evolution in your position in CoPR and that 
> paragraph? In your experience?

Not much evolution, if any.

    [me]
> > If you really stand by this, then there really is no difference in our
> > positions.  The assumption set, in this case, will include an
> > assumption that "the algorithm did not err on this occasion."  How
> > would one check that without reopening the original question?
> [snip]
> 
> Er...isn't the difference that you think the assumption isn't checkable 
> (in fact) whereas Pat thinks that it is?

Pat's paragraph is subject to multiple interpretations.  If he means:
an algorithm might cut all sorts of corners, but must in the end
produce a proof of its conclusions to accompany those conclusions,
then the assumptions would be checkable.  I've read it a couple of
times, and I can't tell if he meant that or not, especially in this
sentence: "Nothing in the semantic specification of the language
requires that all reasoners only perform valid inferences."  Maybe Pat
himself will tell us.

                                             -- Drew



-- 
                                   -- Drew McDermott
                                      Yale Computer Science Department

Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2003 20:48:41 UTC