From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search

[ List view ]Comments

Just tech-question: is it possible somehow to beautify in-line text in "Example of a Hybrid system discussion and reasoning"?

This is a test of blog comments.

This is a test of adding another comment.

This an example of a comment.

Another test comment.

Another comment to test the blog: 6 Feb 2017 @14:28 EST

I created blog http://ontologforum.org/index.php/Blog:Formal_theory,_finite_model_and_DL_reasoner but there is no Comment option so HensonGraves has added his part directly to the post. It's OK but how add a Comment?

Adding a comment to the fourth test article.

1. Correct Use of Axiom sets in engineering modeling. The semantics of a descriptive model (axiom set) is defined by its interpretative semantics. The use of inference to reason about the things described by the model has to correlate to the inference semantics for inference to be valid. While the descriptive model axiom sets are finitely presented, engineering is interested in physical interpretations not just data base interpretations. When a customer takes delivery of an aircraft an initial step is to verify that all of the equipment specified for the aircraft is actually delivered. For used aircraft counterfeit parts are a significant recognized problem. The corresponding engineering model of a physical aircraft is an interpretation of the model in the modeling formalism. The use of interpretations to define the semantics of a model is a form of conditional realism in the sense that reality is defined by the interpretations. For a model there is no presupposition that there exists an interpretation or that there in only one unique interpretation of a model. Often models are contradictory and have no interpretations. Engineering models generally have multiple interpretations. When we build a model for a type of aircraft there is no guarantee that all interpretations of the model have the same number of wings. Generally a lot of work is needed to produce a model whose interpretations are constrained to be what the model developer intended.

2. Description Logic is insufficient for the engineering object language. An object language of a formalism suitable for engineering cannot be represented in Description Logic (DL) as DL does not have function symbols (papers of Motik and Horrocks establish this). Function symbols are needed to represent axiom sets common in engineering.

3. Meta Logic. The meta logic is the language in which models and interpretations are defined. The meta logic has meta categories types. To represent engineering models and their interpretations the meta logic need meta-categories for types and sets (see General Formal Ontology) that are sufficiently defined so that the properties of interpretations needed can be defined and used formally.

Just to begin, 1) It would be nice to have "John's diagram" in the article or by URL. 2) Is it possible to look at an example of axiom set? Or let's look OWL 2 Primer https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/#Appendix:_The_Complete_Sample_Ontology Should we think that whole this ontology is an axiom set?

[edit] Why is context interpreted in terms of three concepts?

1. Context is an object, because it is a noun, meaning a name. Nevertheless it has two references or senses: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/context 1. The circumstances or setting for an event, statement or idea 2. The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage, etc. In both cases the purpose of providing context is to clarify meaning and understanding. This suggests that neither an event, nor a word (clause) is complete or clear without knowing the context. Consequently, if you specify context in sense 1, you need to specify or describe an event complete with the description/identification of its wider environs that the event belongs to as a smaller entity. In sense 2, your description will be similar, because you identify the elements that include the word or clause needing specification. Notice that anything may call for an explanation or the provision of context and may be provided at other times as context itself. This is what I called the Matryoshka variables metaphore. Once you are a container, once you are containment. If you accept that, then clearly context is an object, although not necessarily easy to identify in physical terms. With texts, it is easy though. Also with pictures, but with ideas, it is hell.

2. Context is a property, because it is used to explain, describe and identify an object that context is the context of. Here your ambition is to discover as many elements constituting context as possible or necessary. The effort is a function of purpose, the aim in your mind. Understanding better? Clarification? Implicatures? Establishing the frontiers of the universe of discourse or framing? Separate or isolate your point from possible misinterpretations (finding excuses)? To place your item in a sorted system of classification of items? Notice two phrases: in context and out of context. They identify a location and a location is an abstract object. That abstract object is characterized by the attributes of some other (physical or non physical) object being inside or outside the item making it either more, or less understandable.

3. Context is a relation, because you have two items between which context is contemplated, usually by visual check. This spatial relation is then transitively used to concoct ideas, words in the mind, and then in turn it is represented by lines in 2D planes. We have no idea of how anything is related in the mind, apart from the neurobiological terminology that provides form to what we have here, i.e. concepts, words, etc. as content. We have one word, verb association, connecting, or (two) being connected. Apart from the fact that such a connection, in theory, allows a flow to pass in and to both directions, displaying the property of commutativity, we cannot break it down any further. But it is probably not true; it is not likely that flow in both directions results in the same output. What is more likely, however, is that one direction indicates a move to a larger or wider context and may be this is why we want to arrange (sort by size) things in a linear order and a hierarchy. But apart from such spatial and hierarchical relation that are used in ontologies the analysis of clauses, the dependents of verbs or the theta roles offer configurations with a verb in the center. Of course, verbs are different and so are the configurations. We differentiate between verbs of denotation and verbs of connotation, as obviously they have different configurations and plausibility. Besides, verbs represent the components of models that our thinking devises and which are available in abstract word pairs such as cause and effect, space and time, form and content, quality and quantity. They should be used at the next level following objects, relations and properties for the description of the entities that exist in the world. Making sure, however that the entities that exist in poetry and fiction only and not in the real world shall be separated.

Comment from Jack Ring:

Thank you for seeking to clarify this situation. Pls consider this example and tell us how to express our need in better terms. When talking about a system one person may refer to ‘endogenous' and ‘exogenous' attributes while another person may refer to ‘Class’ and ‘Type' and yet a third may use ‘property' and ‘characteristic,' essentially three sets of synonyms. However the three persons do not necessarily realize these are synonyms so talk past one another. So we are asking ontologists to show us how to handle synonyms so that the ontology can serve diverse members of a system engineering project. This is not simple. Besides synonyms there are perhaps 38 other kinds of ‘-nyms’ in the world’s languages. Make sense? The similar situation exists regarding isomorphs of system models. Help!

Gary – Good elaboration of what could seen as the ‘canonical issues of ontology development’ for real (evolving, complex, heterogeneous, etc.) systems:

1) There are always limits on how much model standardization is feasible and desirable; 2) In hindsight, significant failures can often be traced to lack of standardization in areas where it would have been feasible and desirable; 3) How do you know in advance where those areas will be?

Jack and I have been hoping that this would take shape as an important focus for the context of ontology development and use. Your thoughts on how to proceed are helpful.

Please login to comment.