Re: SUO: Program Semantics
From <http://sup.ieee.org/email/msg08114.html>, "An ontology is similar to
a dictionary or glossary....". All I am doing here is giving a
perspective, from another profession, as to how one might work toward
programming a machine to use a full dictionary or glossary. Of course it
is easy to program a machine to give basic definitions to all of our
words. But we have to work those words into everyday conversational
ability or NLP. Isn't that the challenge? OTOH, if we want to work the
words into a knowledge base, eg for higher education, a somewhat different
spin on the problem is in order. I posted earlier on how MIT's 2,000 OCW
courses might be turned into a giant "expert system scholar" program. Q-A
sets and a "plain language trail" would be the key to enabling all users
to have access. Of course, both the expert system scholar and the NLP
could also be considered as AI's but they certainly fit the SUO definition
of the word "ontology"...and this discussion is about using words
correctly.
FWP/POC
***** POC Plans: For BC Election 2005, Political Avatars under
development; For BC Election 2009, Political Avatars run on trial basis;
For Election 2013, Political Avatars with super-human AI online *****
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Bill Andersen wrote:
> On 3/29/02 17:07, "Party of Citizens" <citizens@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, John F. Sowa wrote:
> >
> >> 1. The problems of knowledge soup (Ch. 6 of my 2000 book or Ch. 7
> >> of my 1984 book) are fundamental to the way people think, and
> >> they must be accommodated by any cognitive agent or reasoning
> >> system that has any hope of attaining the flexibility of human
> >> reasoning (or even a rough approximation to it).
> >
> > clip
> >
> > I like that..."knowledge soup". My work, over the years includes a decade
> > as a psychologist in a mental institution. People can say the darndest
> > things. They can say almost anything under a given set of circumstances
> > (stimulus conditions). There's your "flexibility" in human language.
> > Put a word or symbol on the computer screen. Somebody, somewhere, will
> > follow it with any other word or symbol.
>
> Folks,
>
> This is all great and fascinating stuff. But does any of it have relevance
> to the chartered purpose of this list?
>
> This is NOT a general discussion on AI, human cognition, or NLP - all of
> which are enthralling and worthy subjects, about which I care a great deal.
> But If the term "Ontology" becomes conflated with those terms, then all is
> lost. There will be no progress.
>
> As a reminder of what we ought to be doing, here is the description of the
> standard activity from http://suo.ieee.org/:
>
> ===
>
> Description of Target Standard: This standard will specify an upper
> ontology that will enable computers to utilize it for applications such as
> data interoperability, information search and retrieval, automated
> inferencing, and natural language processing. An ontology is similar to a
> dictionary or glossary, but with greater detail and structure that enables
> computers to process its content. An ontology consists of a set of concepts,
> axioms, and relationships that describe a domain of interest. An upper
> ontology is limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract and
> philosophical, and therefore are general enough to address (at a high level)
> a broad range of domain areas. Concepts specific to given domains will not
> be included; however, this standard will provide a structure and a set of
> general concepts upon which domain ontologies (e.g. medical, financial,
> engineering, etc.) could be constructed.
>
> ===
>
> Now, isn't there enough here to debate over without talking about NLP, or
> Montague, or Wittgenstein's or Peirce's views on human language competence
> and/or performance????
>
> C'mon folks. Try to stay focused. Many people have fled from this group
> because of its lack of focus and tolerance of crackpot rantings. Haven't
> you all noted the conspicuous absence of many bright people who at one time
> contributed regularly? I'm going to join that group very soon.
>
> I will make one last plea for relevance - If you don't want talk about doing
> what's mentioned in the description above, take your discussions offline.
>
> .bill
>
>