[Person-ontology] OWL for exchanging ontologies
Pat Hayes
phayes at ihmc.us
Tue Oct 30 08:31:20 PDT 2007
>Hi Pat!
>
>Your training in management is beginning to show.
>Why do I feel like I'm being manipulated? :-)
>
>
> being managed Pat -not manipulated :-)
Same thing, same thing.
>I recognize the
>signs. You will superficially agree with me, not
>be 'confrontational' (ie not argue),
>
>
>we have only so much energy, gotta be used constructively
>arguing can be fun but exhausting and very time consuming
>as well as pointless
So all of philosophy since Plato is pointless?
This is where we disagree most deeply, I suspect.
For you, argument is at best entertaining and at
worst harmful (because it causes conflict and
breaks up the harmony required for group action),
but in any case it is pointless. Whereas for me
argument is the ONLY way to make progress.
Argument is how truth is determined, how ideas
are matured and made strong. When argument stops,
thought stops.
>you got it - its called charme, cannot buy off the shelf
True, but one can learn to recognize it. Five
years working in industrial research has given me
immunity. If any manager smiles at me, I hide.
:-)
>Here's the problem. Suppose we do this and agree
>on the properties and so on, all in English; and
>also agree on a formalism. Immediately, as soon
>as the properties and so on are written down in
>the formalism, they no longer mean what they
>meant in English, when we agreed on them. In some
>ways they mean less, of course; but in some other
>ways they mean more: their meanings are 'sharper'
>than those of English words, more exactly drawn.
>
>
>
>I think we use 'structured english' for that
No, we don't, for two reasons: first, the most
structured English is still way less 'structured'
than an ontology formalization; and second, for
the interesting topics, the relevant structuring
hasn't been done yet. (Structured English for
talking about humans??)
>
>
>This is why single words in English (like
>"cover") have to be given many alternative
>meanings in formal ontologies (Cyc has something
>like 20 different sense of 'cover' all carefully
>distinguished.) So, it often turns out, the
>agreement that we so painfully constructed back
>in the English wasn't in fact an agreement at
>all, because some of us were thinking of one of
>the precise senses and others of another (and
>others still weren't even aware of the
>distinctions.)
>
>
>
>we use controlled vocabuaries for that
See above. Both of these ideas, structured
language and controlled vocabularies, are what
one might call ontology-lite. The effort to
construct them is similar to that involved in
writing ontologies.
>Often, at least in my experience,
>the ONLY effective way to even get the necessary
>distinctions clarified to the point where
>agreements or disagreements can begin to be be
>discussed, is to begin to formalize them. In
>fact, the formalization process consists in large
>part of clarifying and isolating shades and
>aspects of meaning that are never exposed in
>ordinary language discussions.
>
>
>depends how precise and expressive is the natural language.used
It is never precise enough. How many controlled
vocabularies distinguish ten senses of 'cover'?
(One possible exception: documented case law, as
found for example in the Louisiana Code, which
distinguishes seven senses of 'see'.)
>
>sketches are the first outline of any idea, in
>any field, from fine art to major
>engineering
Well, true, as long as we are willing to treat it
as a genuine sketch, which gets erased as soon as
one starts actually painting.
> > And first, absolute first, must be requirements analysis
>>as you and I already discussed and partly agreed
>>on the Ontolog list a while back
>
>Well, true. I'd like to have a clearer idea of
>what this ontology is supposed to be used for.
>Perhaps the project leaders could oblige us ??
>
>
>or employ us
Hah.
> we can also spontaneously initiate a requirements
>gathering/analysis process for this project.if properly rewarded
>
>
>>we can easily use some free mind mapping
> >soffware and get the good people on this list
>>to do that kind of brainstorming remotely, would that work for you?
>
>Worth trying, but my experience is that working
>remotely isn't very effective. One needs a
>certain degree of the 'vatican council' effect
>where the people are all put in one room and
>mutually forced to focus on the topic, to get the
>group past the 'stuck' periods which inevitably
>happen.
>
>
>I am thankful to remote environments, limiting
>the opportunity of physical confrontation and
>carbon dioxide saturation - your choice of
>weapons -
> although I do look forward to the opportunity
>to meet up, after the main differences have been
>strighted out at a distance perhaps
Videoconferencing might be one way to get the
focus of the single room without the physical
travel. I don't know if anyone has tried this in
this context, I'll see if I can find out.
>Well, there isn't (AFAIK) yet an accepted
>'ontology engineering lifecycle',
>
>
>there is but its still rather rudimentary - check out any ont eng methodology
>they are all lifecycle based, I have done a
>comparative study, there should be something
>more authoritative than my own review online
Pointer?
>
>I ll send you the slides
Yes, please do.
>
> >
>
>YOU punch
>out a plan :-)
>
>
>awaiting further instructions
>
>
>Pdm
>
>
> >>PDM>>> >>>p
>
> >>
>>>On 10/26/07, Pat Hayes <<mailto:
>>><mailto:phayes at ihmc.us>phayes at ihmc.us><mailto:phayes at ihmc.us>
>>>phayes at ihmc.us> wrote:
>>>>>>I say that before encoding ontology, there is some groundwork to be
>>>>>>done in plain english.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. What?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>write spec - (lots of subtasks there)
>>>>
>>>>OK, perhaps then you can tell me what a spec of
>> >>an ontology should look like. I have never seen
>>>>one.
>>>>
>>>>>OWL is not a programming code, and
>>>>>formalizing knowledge is not like programming.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a 'metaphor'
>> >>
>>>>? WHat is a metaphor for what here? YOu have lost
>>>>me. If you are using programming (esp. management
>>>>of large software projects) as a metaphor for how
>>>>to build ontologies, I thinkn you are using a bad
>>>>(= highly misleading) metaphor.
>>>>
>>>>>- but I think you and I do not share the same background, therefore
>>>>>you tend to misinterpret my constructs
>>>>>regularlty. I wish I could express myself using
> >>>>mathematical formulas
>>>>
>>>>Well, I do read and write English reasonably proficiently.
>>>>
>>>>>Listing relevant facts and topic areas, and
>>>>>first application areas, might be well worth trying, however.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>sounds like a good start -diagrams are useful
>>>>>to some people, and not so useful to others
>>>>>but the fact that they are not useful to you,
>>>>>does not mean that you have the right to
>>>>>wipe them off the project
>>>>
>>>>True, I don't think I have any authority to wipe
>>>>anything. However I do have the right to ignore
>>>>them and requests to draw them, which I shall do.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>so, shall we start? (before worrying where it ends)
>>>>>
>>>>>Are there any facts about people that any of us are likely to *not* agree
>>>>on?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I can answer that after you tell me what the
>>>>>facts are, Where are the 'assertions'
>>>>>of this ontology?
>>>>
>>>>You have already said that you want to do all
>>>>this BEFORE any assertions have been written. The
>>>>assertions ARE the ontology.
>>>>
>>>>>so that we can discuss them (apols if I they are
>>>>>somewhere that I have not seen, but ifs so, they
>>>>>should be pointed to when referring to them)
>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>>also, did nt you say that somethin in Higgins is broken, maybe
>>>>>>that's something that should be worked on before thinking of coding
>>>>>
>>>>>It was the coding that was 'broken', but maybe 'highly idiosyncratic'
>>>>>would be a better description.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I see, syntax then - was wondering about that
>>>>
>>>>No, not syntax: semantics. HOWL is syntactically correct OWL.
>>>>
>>>>Pat
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>PDM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Paola
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>IHMC(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>>>>>40 South Alcaniz St.(850)202 4416 office
> >>>>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>>>>FL 32502(850)291 0667cell
>>>>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
>>>>><<<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
>>>><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes ><<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
>>>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Paola Di Maio
>>>>>School of IT
>>>>><<<http://www.mfu.ac.th>
>>>>>http://www.mfu.ac.th><http://www.mfu.ac.th>
>>>>>http://www.mfu.ac.th>
>>>><<http://www.mfu.ac.th>http://www.mfu.ac.th><http://www.mfu.ac.th>
>>>>www.mfu.ac.th
>>>>>*********************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>IHMC(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>>>>40 South Alcaniz St.(850)202 4416 office
>>>>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>>>FL 32502(850)291 0667cell
>>>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
>>>><<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
>>>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes ><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Paola Di Maio
>>>School of IT
>>><<http://www.mfu.ac.th>
>>>http://www.mfu.ac.th><http://www.mfu.ac.th>www.mfu.ac.th
>>>*********************************************
>>
>>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>IHMC(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>>40 South Alcaniz St.(850)202 4416 office
>>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>FL 32502(850)291 0667cell
>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
>><<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Paola Di Maio
>>School of IT
>><<http://www.mfu.ac.th>http://www.mfu.ac.th><http://www.mfu.ac.th>
>>www.mfu.ac.th
>>*********************************************
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>--
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
><http://www.mfu.ac.th> www.mfu.ac.th
>*********************************************
>
>--
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
><http://www.mfu.ac.th>www.mfu.ac.th
>*********************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>Person-ontology mailing list
>Person-ontology at idcommons.net
>http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
More information about the Person-ontology
mailing list