Friday, February 10, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
On using RDF to model web services
Communication from Paul
From:
Andrea []
Sent:
Friday, February 10, 2006 8:11 AM
To:
Paul
Subject:
Re: on the nature of the Protege-OWL and Frames paradigm
The
humans are the users. If they also are the essence, then you don't
give
them any hope to obtain something without direct intervention.
I
I would like to know what you know about ISO/IEC 11179 ... and I would like to ask that you look briefly at the published works by Alan Rector (at Manchester).
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig/people/rector/alr-papers.html
in this two lines of thought I see a way forward towards the stratification of ontological and web services, so that ontological modeling occurs WITH direct human intervention (human induction of meaning in the present moment) at all times (but using recourses that are encoded as n-aries (modeling all possible relational entailments as in the Mark 3 system and in other systems that I write about).) The discussion by McCarthy and other at Lawrence Berkeley national Laboratory
focuses, as would have Robert Rosen, on the relational entailment as a supplement to the metadata registries being developed in various forms all over the world. The "meaning" of the relational entailment is both situational and distributed .... to forget one "layer" is to fail to understand "reality".
My proposed web services are SOA (service oriented architecture) based - but also stratified through the use of a methodology that my client is developing based on situational contracts and global category formation. Sorry I cannot describe this simpler. We have yet to work out the details of how this "goes to the market".
maybe this is the picture that can be painted, I do not know.
Engineered web services are based on an world wide engineered telecommunication infrastructure, and formative ontological services are based on human in the loop use of ontological modeling. (This is the Second School way of looking at this.)
In the methodology I am proposing, the two types of support {for ease of worldwide transactions} are put together through legal contracts. These contracts are temporally and conditionally scoped as part of explicit social agreements. The methodology produces a "cover of all possible intentions" by developing four layers of information, two below; one in the middle (blueprints) , and one as a top down constraint. The top down constraint is "policy". The lower lower level is a measurement process that produces a set of "invariances" appearing across all patterns. The level below "blueprints" is measured patterns.
The extension of Mill's logic
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter6.htm
is to be used (in a way similar to QSAR analysis of biological structure to function mapping) to refine the set of invariants so that the set (of invariances) is minimal in number and complete (what I call an axiom set - not to be confused with how knowledge engineers use the term "axiom"). This axiom set is then "asserted situationally" because it is "observed" through specific measurement processes. The meaning of patterns are then induced (inference not through deduction but directly from direct human awareness) as "plausible". The blue prints are then manufactured in accordance with policy, governance and compliance issues. The set of blue prints are then available to be sold as part of the formation of legal contracts. The contracts are not produced by a machine intelligence, but by human to human communication and intentionality.
This means that real humans are responsibility involved in the decision making and in discovery of solutions (not a machine intelligence). The First School seems to impose the notion that humans do not have a necessary contributions once the knowledge engineers set up the Semantic Web.
Your note:
"The humans are the users. If they also are the essence, then you
don't
give them any hope to obtain something without direct intervention."
effectively replaces the role that "God" plays in social reality with a proposed role of the collective intelligence as expressed within the internet. The notion of "God" is treated as just another form of abstraction, and one that can be replaced by the abstraction emerging from the Internet. Am I interpreting you correctly?
The notion of direct intervention does not have to be as it is in religious fundamentalism, it can be as we see and talk about in Native American Old Way... a spirituality without a surrender to an ideology.
This spirituality takes responsibility for human individual awareness - and makes us more fully human. Can the Second School delivery a methodology that is acceptable to business where the replacement of "God" with the "Semantic Web" does not occur? If the Second School is to do this, it has to show that human intervention in autonomous computer processes is essential if our society is to move into a spiritual age. (and again, I am not necessarily suggesting the Judo-Christian-Moslem view of spirituality.)
Artificial Intelligence and blind loyalty to the concept of machine intelligence relieves us from this responsibility in the same way, I feel, as does the current television programming. We are manipulated for layers of reasons. Why would the fully autonomous Semantic Web be any different that our current television in this respect.
This is really complex, and easy to get misunderstood. I am virtually alone (with a few exceptions) in feeling that the human needs "direct intervention" from the inner essence of what it might be to be human....