[243]                           home                           [245]

 

Sunday, November 27, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

National Project à 

Challenge Problem  à

 Center of Excellence Proposal à

 

 

 

 

Discussion about ONTAC forum

ONTAC stands for Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Working Group

It is a working group of

Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP)

 

 

 

 

We are interested in hosting a discussion, and a conference, on this issue of "the nature of logic" and the relationship of "logic" to the type of computer science that is in the mainstream. 

 

There is a movement attempting to demonstrate the case that "something" like rough sets (which is felt to be superior to fuzzy set/logic) is required to model formative processes, and to thus be the foundational "logic" to support the interfaces between human professional communities - such as medical community and intelligence community in time of crisis. 

 

The rough "set" is really an upper and lower envelop on a categorical definition using overlapping categories as the upper envelop and categorization that is incomplete (where the union of the category membership does not cover the "semantic" space) is the lower envelop.  The corresponding  "and", "not" and "some" in rough logic does not produce "or" or an "every" ... first of all.  The dependency on both the notion of completeness and the notion of consistency is weakened ....  in several respects.  Quasi axiomatic theory can be seen to be in line with rough logic. 

 

"Crisp" rough sets, where the upper and lower envelop are the same,  produce classical set theory.  However, the issue of completeness and consistency is not imposed on the inference rules as you do in classical logic (so that the proof by contradiction cannot be appealed to.) 

 

This absence of proof by contradiction is the key to building schema independent knowledge bases. 

 

Particularly with differences between human viewpoints, the formal ontology should not impose a requirement for precision and for consistency. 

 

It is conjectured, based on specific evidence, that tf the "IT system" does impose a rigid requirement for precision and for consistency, it will both harm the world when there is a crisis, and ultimately fail to be used by users who have become accustom to information system dysfunction. 

 

Anyway, the issue regarding logic is NOT the only entrenched problem in the working groups. 

 

 

The conference could be here in Taos in February, 2006.  Date is yet to be determined.