[324]                           home                           [326]

 

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

 

 

Challenge Problem  à

 

 

Lattice of ontologies

 

Function/structure descriptions

 

From the Protégé OWL forum discussion

 

Andrea,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful note.

 

This discussion will not go on for long, so please I hope everyone who is offended by this please just delete.  You have more important things to do. 

 

Here the issue with computer science is that it is the only community that is defining modern IT.

 

So a divergence between IT standards, like W3C, and natural science is not the same as two communities of natural scientists, or political camps being in disagreement.

 

Computer science wants to be to modern information theory like mathematics is to engineering.

 

But as long as there is a high degree of inflexibility in how computer science presents itself, then the problem is that the other communities (like the medical community) is forced to accept what ever is created.  But the inflexibility itself comes from the foundational issues that Church, Turing and Godel addressed - and these have to do with representation of completeness of description and consistency over logical inferences.

 

Jay Forrester concept of complexity is very close to Robert Rosen's, in that a natural system and a complex system as "same as". 

 

I talk about this at:

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm

 

Forrester was into general systems theory and developed a number of heuristics that opens up the formalism so that computer human interaction could be complex - because the human was supplying inputs at those points where the computer would reach a halting condition. 

 

As to the relevance to this notion of natural complexity, the anonymous individual is one way to put a symbol in place that can allow a late binding of the meaning to be given that symbol. 

 

right?

 

Paul