From - Tue Feb 20 18:08:19 2001 X-UIDL: 96d3a01feaf4c262 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: lacall-onemodel:org-lacall@onemodel.org X-Envelope-To: lacall@onemodel.org Received: (qmail 70228 invoked by uid 800); 20 Feb 2001 14:11:03 -0000 Date: 20 Feb 2001 14:11:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20010220141103.70227.qmail@uruz.pair.com> To: lacall@onemodel.org References: <3A927AE2.4010408@onemodel.org> In-Reply-To: <3A927AE2.4010408@onemodel.org> X-Loop: general-digest-list@onemodel.org From: general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org Reply-To: Please.write.a.new.mail.instead.of.replying@FIRST.WORD.archive Content-ID: <"volume00/10"%general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org> Subject: archive retrieval: volume00/10 Precedence: bulk Content-Disposition: inline; filename="volume00/10" Content-Type: message/rfc822; directory="volume00"; name="10" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org Subject: general-digest-list Digest V00 #10 X-Loop: general-digest-list@onemodel.org X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/10 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: general-digest-list@onemodel.org Reply-To: general-list@onemodel.org ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain general-digest-list Digest Volume 00 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Re: Markets for a Unified Model of K [ Lee Howard ] list [ "Tom and other Packers" ] Re: Modeling Relations -- Re: use ca [ Mark Butler ] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:51:07 -0600 From: Lee Howard To: "Tom and other Packers" Cc: "Jared (h) Norman" , "OM List" Subject: Re: Markets for a Unified Model of Knowledge Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000816205107.00806590@server.deanox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > I think we're using the word "literature" differently. I'm using it in >a broad sense, in which it means every instance of written language, >including books, magazine articles, pamphlets, etc. How else can the word "literature" be used? I wasn't using it to mean anything else, as far as I can remember. Surely someone somewhere publishes information on the CES firesides. I know this, because I get that publication. And it indeed is in our stake library, somewhere. It was written, and verily it was in a library. And therefore the information that you sought was indeed in a library. Only you didn't know which library. > I don't think any library would have told me that there was not a CES >fireside that Sunday, except perhaps the family history library or the BYU >library, and in those cases only because I'd expect one of the employees to >happen to know, on his own, and not because the library itself actively >sought such "temporary" knowledge. Furthermore, it was just an example. We >can all think of information that we can't find anywhere, even though it's >theoretically plausible that someone in the world knows this knowledge. The only difference between any information that I can think of possibly and rightfully being in a library or not is in its being written or published. To say that OM would only contain information found in a library is presumptuous indeed. But honestly, I can't think of any information that would belong in OM that wouldn't belong in some library somewhere at some time. > I completely disagree with the statement that there is no value in Om >telling us back what we already know. From one perspective, that's all Om >or any other model of knowledge ever does. The value is not in coming up >with new knowledge, per se, but in having all the previously existing >knowledge in one place, and in having algorithms which automatically find >instances of one particular bit of information in a context that we hadn't >considered before, (I don't mean bit in the binary digit sense). In one use >there is a reorganisation of information, sure. And you could say that it >comes up with new information. But in the other, there is no fundamental >reorganisation. It's supposed to look the same as how it was entered; the >difference is the person who is looking at it is not the same person who >entered it. >From what it appears, you've reconstructed my very literal statement that "nobody needs OM to reiterate what it was told" to include all non-considered possibilities. I don't understand how non-considered possibilities can be viewed as knowledge - but don't disagree with me, because you're not disagreeing with what I was trying to say, and I honestly thought that I was quite clear. If I say, "Bob is my uncle" to OM, then I don't really need OM to tell me that I am Bob's nephew. That's what I was saying. Now, it surely would be useful to tell OM that Bob is my uncle and then have OM tell me back that Bob left me a grand inheritance at his death that I didn't know about. > There is value in that. But if that doesn't motivate you ... you're >sounding like the animals in the story about the red hen. You want the >finished project without the work required in making the less-useful >intermediate model. We have to start somewhere, Lee. Simple, redundant >(library-like) model of information first. Massively powerful theory of >truth and oracle of the gods, second. You're missing my intent. I don't want the finished product, necessarily. I'm challenging you to prove that the finished product could theoretically exist. My point is that it can't. My point has been that OM cannot, could not, and will not with every genius in the world ever be able to create truth that it was not told. It must be fed it beforehand by someone, somewhere. All that OM can do is provide context searches on sets of information, and the truth of its results are as questionable as is its information. I cannot misinform OM and expect it to produce valid results. I don't believe that there exists an independent algorithm that can be constructed to deduce truth from lies. In an infinite universe with infinite possibilities no finite pattern could plausibly be constructed to model it accurately. OM can present us with possibilities, possibly unconsidered, but it cannot produce truth which was unknown beforehand. It can produce information, call it knowledge - but not truth. There is a difference. So yes, I certainly would get bored of OM telling me truths that I already told it, like "Huckleberry Finn is fiction". But it would be really cool if it could tell me that the character of Jim in the book is very similar to the character in some other book. And as I've been trying to say, a library does this. Someone has labled a book "fiction" or "non-fiction" or "biographical" or "romance" or "childrens". Without that label - OM could never know the truth of any given piece of information. (By this example, and the one I gave previously, I am *not* attempting to correlate fiction=false, nonfiction=truth. I am using them in parallel, as example, but not equating them. I am merely showing the necessity of labeling for any model.) > And about fact and fiction, I fear you are guilty of a cardinal sin: >compartmentalisation. If there were no truth in Huckleberry Finn at all, no >correspondence in any way to reality, what value would it have? It would >not only be of no value, it would be meaningless and unintelligible. And >what of parables, and allegories like "Animal Farm", and the children's >moralistic story about the red hen and the lazy animals, and all other >instances of the blurred line between fact and fiction? Single human beings >can't always take the time to compare a story to (1) the authors life >history, (2) world history, (3) gospel doctrine, (4) any other arbitrary >branch of knowledge. And what of theories and hypotheses, which are >supposed to be factual, but which are mostly fictional, >aesthetically-appealing simplifications of the data someone has gathered? >And what of old knowledge, such as "the world is round", which was fact, but >then became disbelieved, and which later became fact again? Well, sorry. I was stating a fact that Huckleberry Finn is in the fictional section of the library. I didn't put it there. If I had my way a library would be sorted by author only. Anyway, it seems to me that you're intentionally misunderstanding what I said about the rudimentary labeling that a library makes - and then inferring that I support and uphold its righteousness. My point was (and is) that the validity of the events portrayed in Huckleberry Finn could never be determined independently by OM, and that at some point in time someone would have to label it. Did you ever have any of that learning software? I wrote some for vocabulary help. So, I'd enter in all of the words into a file and correspond them with their definition. And then the program would "randomly" pick a definition or word and ask me to reiterate its corresponding word or definition. So, if the definition came up "a large, uncontrollable fire" and I answered "inferno" when the vocabulary list only knew "conflagration" then I would be declared wrong... and I would forever be declared wrong until I instructed the mechanism that indeed I wasn't. I'm trying to keep things simple, which is why I'm making these library and vocabulary-list comparisons. And in its simplest form, this is all that we're having OM do. Sure, we can make its searching complex, sure we can ask it really mean questions, but it can only tell truths that it's already been told. Sure, it will present us with possibilities that we have perhaps not considered before, but the fundamental validity of the information is as good as it gets. > And what of any "fact"? Are we 100% certain of anything? Sure, we have >our personal convictions, but I believe that it is impossible to prove to >someone else even those things which we, ourselves, feel we have 100% >certainty about. Some of us are 100% certain of many things. Truth does exist. Do not doubt that. Getting someone to believe that truth is not what OM is about, I didn't think. I thought that it was a data analyzer. .... > So, right now, there are values in telling the OM that it is >"fictional", manually. And later, there will be added benefit when it can >figure this out itself (using other knowledge which we had to "feed" it). This is the viewpoint that I'm trying to disagree with (figuring it out itself). For example, in geneology I can be presented a list of children of one of my grandparents - say from a census report. And lets say that from a family Bible we get a similar list of children, but it also includes one more child, (Uncle) Bob, who because of his age, should have been included on the census report. If we expect these lists to be complete lists, then one of them is in error, and without being told the truth, it is impossible to discern it regardless of the amount of other information. > There is _no_ way for OM to find truth, the way you seem to want. >There. Is that what you've been waiting to hear? Yes. See, you knew what I was after all along. So why make such a fuss about libraries and Huckleberry Finn? > But there is value in OM, by it simply reconciling thoughts that we feed >it, or even by showing us where the inconsistencies are, and letting us >reconcile them manually. Yes. Exactly what I've been trying to say. And yes, there is no library that currently has context searching available. So? OM doesn't do context searching yet either. And what I'm saying is that I'd like to use a library in the same way: by showing us similarities and inconsistencies and allowing the user to delve into it to find truth. What I'm saying is that this is the purpose in a library: to present information, literature if you will, and allow the reader an opportunity to discern the truth of the matter. > Good. I hope this isn't dear to your heart. In other words, why do we >have to be in competition with the well-advanced library of the future? Why >can't we take some [good] pride in being among those who may develop that >perfect library? That's what I'm saying: we are developing a futuristic library. .... > And, as Jared says, it's easier to tear (sp?) down than to build. Ah, this old trick. Nah, I won't bother pointing it out any further. > If the fact that our theory of truth isn't finished means that you >are disinterested in the project, I think you ought to have faith that it >might turn out to be the best thing (next to the scriptures) that you've >ever read -- and just help us now anyway. Does it seem that I am disinterested? I've never spent so much time writing about something in which I was disinterested. Of course I'm not disinterested. I'm trying to point out, though, that the direction that this project is heading is flawed. From many messages I've come to understand that OM's goal was to discern unstated truth. I've been asking for an algorithm because I doubt that the simplest or most complex one could function. Let's not go that direction, then... because it's futile. Yes, I am very disinterested in trying to develop a truth-finding machine. However, if we're developing a context analyzer, something that can compare data and give us results - something very much like what I've illustrated as a "futuristic library" then yes I am interested. And indeed the first step in that is to have the data with which to work. Ooh, wouldn't it be nice to be able to plug into a box all of my personality and then plug in all of my female friends and their personality and then be able to plug in circumstance and situation and then ask it, "Who won't turn me down for a date?" You know, it would be as often wrong as it would be right. But, I believe in a system that could tell me whose personality is most like mine in some aspect. Common personalities haven't gotten me far in the dating arena, so I doubt that such information would prove useful to me in that regard, but it sure was interesting to learn. Lee. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:02:28 -0600 From: "Tom and other Packers" To: "Luke (h) Call" , "OM List" Subject: list Message-ID: <001301c00857$1b566e40$1f03a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit redundancy Luke, Is there some way the list can delete the address of a person who was already included in a mailing? For example, you are getting this message twice, right? Just like I have been getting all of Lee's letters twice because he doesn't delete my name from the "to" list when he replies to me. Can't the OM list delete me, and you in this case, from it's list if it sees that the same address has been sent the letter? tomp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:40:15 -0600 From: Luke Call To: general-list@onemodel.org Subject: Re: list Message-ID: <399C318F.8060608@onemodel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm going to try a new list soon that may be different to configure anyway, so I'll let you know if I see that as an option on the new one. Luke > At 08:02 AM 8/17/00 -0600, Tom and other Packers wrote: > >redundancy > > > >Luke, > > > > Is there some way the list can delete the address of a person who was > >already included in a mailing? For example, you are getting this message > >twice, right? Just like I have been getting all of Lee's letters twice > >because he doesn't delete my name from the "to" list when he replies to me. > >Can't the OM list delete me, and you in this case, from it's list if it sees > >that the same address has been sent the letter? > > > >tomp > > > > > > -- Help us put all knowledge in one bucket: www.onemodel.org. Note to friends/family: my email address is changing from lcall@pobox.com to lacall@onemodel.org. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:01:32 -0600 From: Mark Butler To: general-list@onemodel.org Subject: Re: Modeling Relations -- Re: use cases Message-ID: <399CD13C.AAFBD89F@middle.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Luke Call wrote: > > So, when a user creates some form of is-a relationship between entities, > perhaps the system can assume it is an > instance of an existing type unless they change the attributes. So, as > mentioned before, each class is defined by a "type-definer" instance (an > archetype), which has additional type-specific data defined, such > as constraints, default values, and the type name. These could be > moved, if someone prefers, to a different entity, which then becomes the > archetype in its place. But > then when you add or remove attributes from a member of that class, does > that automatically define a new class, modify the existing class (we > could prompt the user for which), or is a new type created only when you > sub-type it by creating another is-a that points to it as the parent? First, the archetype *is* the class. If you create a different archetype you have just created a new class. Second, any entity may be thought of as a class of a sort, if only of membership one. If I add an attribute to "Mark Butler", I have not changed any properties of living organism, human, or male - I have changed the record of what is known about me alone. On the other hand, if I add an attribute to "human", that automatically affects the interpretation of every instance or sub class of "human", including "Mark Butler". If it didn't, it would not be a correct attribute. Sub-classes do not need to explicitly repeat any attributes of the parent classes - after all we may not know anything about a sub class or instance beyond some sort of name. "a human" is a valid instance of "human" with cardinality one and no other known information. There is no need to waste space listing attributes we do not know the value of. > Could we handle worldviews and inconsistencies in data by allowing > inconsistent data, but being able to show where the inconsistencies are, > and allowing a user to choose the data set they prefer (or choose it for > a given query), given the conflict? Well, I think we should allow users to specify trust levels for different world views / schemas, and then have the query engine take those levels into account. A good query engine would also automatically deprecate the trust level of each piece of any unresolved inconsistency. > Multiple inheritance as you've described above makes sense to me. But as > to the meta-internodes and queries, detailed examples in layman's terms > would help--describing specific entities, relationships,and > how a search would traverse them. Personally, I do not see any reason to draw a iron-clad distinction between a node and an internode. If you treat an internode as a type of node, then a meta-internode is simply another node that happens to be an internode to an internode. And of course, you can then easily add meta-meta-internodes, and meta^3-internodes, ... - Mark -- Mark Butler ( butlerm@middle.net ) Software Engineer Epic Systems (801)-451-4583 -------------------------------- End of general-digest-list Digest V00 Issue #10 ***********************************************