Re: SUO: *Date 05 Apr 2002 -- Formalism Engineering
Jon and Bill,
Before commenting on the recent discussion, I'd like to quote
the first paragraph from Chapter 3 of a great textbook on
knowledge representation:
Knowledge engineering is the application of logic and ontology
to the task of building computable models of some domain for some
purpose. The features computable, domain, and purpose characterize
it as a branch of engineering. Pure mathematics lacks all three:
it need not have an application domain; it may define noncomputable
or even infinite structures; and it may have no purpose other
than the esthetic satisfaction of contemplating elegant abstractions.
Empirical sciences have a domain, and they make computable
predictions about the domain; but they need not have any purpose
other than the pursuit of knowledge. Engineering, however, uses
science and mathematics for the purpose of solving practical
problems within the constraints of budgets and deadlines. Knowledge
engineering can therefore be defined as the branch of engineering
that analyzes knowledge about some subject and transforms it to a
computable form for some purpose.
Note the three features that distinguish engineering from science:
(1) purpose (2) solving practical problems (3) constraints of budgets
and deadlines (or more generally, available resources).
Jon Awbrey wrote:
> What is "formalism engineering" if not the critique of existing
> formalisms and the art of designing them more to the point of their
> transcendental purposes?
I suppose that a transcendental purpose is a purpose, but I'm not
sure how or whether it is related to practical problems. And this
definition leaves out the constraint of available resources. So I
would not consider this to be an adequate definition of anything
that purports to be a branch of engineering.
In criticizing Jon's definition, Bill Andersen wrote:
> That's SCIENCE, not ENGINEERING....
> For the purposes of building an ontology system (or systems), there
> is only one necessary condition: that the logic be able to do any
> computation we can do on our current von Neumann-style digital
> computers.
This criticism gets closer to the problems of engineering, since
it mentions the purpose of building something that does at least
as much as current (i.e., practical) systems. And the implicit
assumption is that it could do the same or similar tasks better
(i.e., with fewer resources or a closer approximation to the
desired goal).
I believe, however, that Jon's search for some minimal essence
of what logic is supposed to be does have merit. In my opinion,
Peirce's existential graphs come very close to that ideal.
However, an ideal engineering solution may have many more features
than the minimum. After an ideal set of primitives has been found,
it may be convenient to combine those primitives to define new
operators that simplify the expression of various propositions.
Bottom line: I wouldn't call Jon's search for minimalism to be
a branch of engineering, but a scientific endeavor that might
someday contribute to an engineering effort. Bill's emphasis
on getting something accomplished on a timely schedule seems
to be closer to the essence of engineering.
John Sowa