From OntologPSMW

Revision as of 07:25, 27 February 2019 by Ravisharma (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
    (1)
Session Introduction
Duration 1 hour60 minute
3,600 second
0.0417 day
Date/Time Jan 23 2018 17:00 GMT
9:00am PST/12:00pm EST
5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET
Convener Ken Baclawski

Contents

Agenda     (2A)

Conference Call Information     (2B)

Attendees     (2C)

Proceedings     (2D)

[12:02] Gary: Ken are you running each of the presentations or are we trying to share screens?     (2D1)

[12:03] @Gary: Each presenter will share the screen for their presentation. If they have any difficulty with this, then I will share the screen for them.     (2D2)

[12:18] Mark Underwood: (RE Finance track presentation)     (2D4)

[12:21] Douglas R. Miles: wow great list of speakers     (2D5)

[12:23] Gary: @John. Thank you for helping to recruit Benjamin for our session when Pascal was forced to move his talk to the 2nd session.     (2D6)

[12:35] Alessandro Oltramari: I will forward the announcement to the Ontolog list, but you may be interested in this breakout session I'm co-organizing at US2TS: https://deepsemantic2019.github.io/     (2D7)

[12:38] Donna: I like the introduction of visualization as an approach to reasoning/explanation thanks @Mike, @Mark     (2D8)

[12:40] MikeBennett: Cool! I think that and auditability would be good seams to explore in finance and elsewhere     (2D9)

[12:42] John Sowa: Alessandro, I went to that web page. And the questions they ask about finding methods to "inject knowledge into deep models" shows that the Semantic Web has been a failure.     (2D10)

[12:43] John Sowa: The goal of the SemWeb was to be the universal foundation for representing all forms of knowledge.     (2D11)

[12:44] John Sowa: That was also the goal for Common Logic, which Hayes and Guha proposed as the foundation for the SW.     (2D12)

[12:45] MikeBennett: That's the role of ontology but IM/e the Semantic Web is about providing discrete reasoning applications and data querying, integration etc. These are also very valuable but expecting the same things to deliver both is not realistic IMHO.     (2D13)

[12:45] John Sowa: But the DL crowd outvoted them. So we got stuck with two tiny little logics -- RDF and OWL.     (2D14)

[12:46] John Sowa: Mike, CL was designed as the foundation for ontology.     (2D15)

[12:47] John Sowa: Pat Hayes was working with the SW group in the early days and Tim B-L strongly supported the idea of a general logic and ontology.     (2D16)

[12:47] John Sowa: But the DL crowd limited ontology to a very tiny subset of logic.     (2D17)

[12:48] John Sowa: DARPA funded the original SW project (2000 to 2005). And they were very disappointed with the results.     (2D18)

[12:50] John Sowa: There is much more to say. But the short answer is that Tim B-L's vision in the 2000 proposal was far broader that what was delivered in 2005. He considered the 2005 version to be just scratching the surface of what was needed.     (2D19)

[12:50] Alessandro Oltramari: overall, I think that from a purist perspective, John is fundamentally right     (2D20)

[12:50] MikeBennett: The current limitations in SemWeb that I am seeing are more to do with the practitioner focus on applications, exclusion of foundational terms as they do not help the reasoner or they slow it down. Needed a clearer distinction between computationally independent model and application, of which either can be in OWL/DL at least in part. I'm generalizing but this is what I see.     (2D21)

[12:52] MikeBennett: So I would not say the SemWeb is a failure but it fails to deliver the things that you and I and others here care about.     (2D22)

[12:52] John Sowa: Mike and Alessandro, please look at the historical documents, which show both theory and practice from 1980 to the present.     (2D23)

[12:52] John Sowa: I collected them in http://jfsowa.com/ikl     (2D24)

[12:53] MikeBennett: Thanks     (2D25)

[12:54] Alessandro Oltramari: I will check them out, for sure. But it's true that if SW fails to deliver what ontologists originally meant, it also shows that the two communities are only marginally related, these days     (2D26)

[12:54] MikeBennett: As indeed they are.     (2D27)

[12:54] John Sowa: Basic point: For those of us who were there, the visions of 1980 were more coherent than the visions of 2019.     (2D28)

[12:55] John Sowa: I noticed that Tim Finin was signed on earlier today, but he went away. He also live through most of these developments.     (2D29)

[12:55] TerryLongstreth: @Ravi - RL of XRL is Reinforcement Learning     (2D30)

[12:56] Gary: @John, do you mean the visions now in 2019 or earlier in the century?     (2D31)

[12:57] John Sowa: For anybody who did, all we have today is a huge increase in volume with no increase in fundamental ideas.     (2D32)

[12:57] John Sowa: Gary, by visions I mean the 100+ documents cited in http://jfsowa.com/ikl     (2D33)

[12:59] Gary: @John We will have to mull over this vision and foundation for our communique starting with the sessions but getting some sense in the first synthesis.     (2D34)

[12:59] John Sowa: Ontolog Forum, for example, is rehashing the kinds of ideas from the email lists of the 1990s.     (2D35)

[13:00] John Sowa: If interested, look at the SRKB email list from 1991 to 1994. (cited in IKL)     (2D36)

[13:00] John Sowa: you'll see a lot of familiar names.     (2D37)

[13:01] Gary: This laundry list suggests a small task to organize and visualize the landscape. There are some rudimentary ones I have seen in passing but haven't contemplated.     (2D38)

[13:03] Donna: have a good week everyone!     (2D39)

[13:04] John Sowa: There has been progress in theory and in some of the implementations, but anybody who doesn't know the history is doomed to repeat it.     (2D40)

[13:06] ToddSchneider: Meeting ends @13:05 Eastern.     (2D41)

Resources     (2E)

Previous Meetings     (2F)

Next Meetings     (2G)