August 10, 2005
Center of Excellence Proposal
à
Communication to a Semantic
Web standards related e-forum
A focused position statement
on the notions that has been briefly discussed here regarding the artificiality
of semantic web ontologies is at [bead 188]
Communicated to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
(additional related
discussion (November 18, 2005) à [207] )
Core question. Are there any working ontologies that use Cyc Corp or W3C formalism?
The answer is convenient. The working ontologies are all proprietary or classified.
I tried to ask Patrick why would there be no clear examples of a significant working ontology where the issue of emergence of new properties was representative of the reality the ontology is thought to modeling.
If someone has such an example, please send me a link so that I can post the link (here). These known examples would be useful to study, and to ask if there is a category of phenomenon (such as living systems) that have NOT been included in this list of working ontologies.
The information I wished to share with Patrick was about complexity theory where "emergence" was considered to be the critical phenomenon.
The conversation degenerated. All I could point out was that there are literatures regarding the limitations of formalism like the RDF/OWL – first order predicate logics. (see for example.. {**})
I pointed out that there are many natural scientists that have become displeased with computer science, and how computer science has evolved into a partnership with scientific reductionism of the strongest form. His demand is that I cite these natural scientists. The list cannot include anyone that he has previously been told about, since these names are already discounted as being in the same camp as Sir Roger Penrose.
Why is there an issue about this notion of citing natural scientists who have taken a politically high-risk position in questioning the nature of computer science and the mythology of artificial intelligence?
I have some other things to say about this at:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm
Where I and others lay out a plan to displace the current IT and computer science disciplines by establishing a science of human knowledge and reducing federal funding of computer science from 1.4 B per year (which is the current direct federal to computer science department welfare) to .4 B which is what the mathematics departments get from the federal government in direct grants.
Comments will be posted into this “glass bead game”.
Paul Prueitt
Taos, New Mexico