Light can vaporize water without the need for heat

[John F Sowa]

A surprising phenomenon that occurs all around us everywhere, and nobody noticed until some researchers took very precise measurements.  It shows that our theories of seemingly simple matters can be incomplete in fundamental ways.

Implications for ontology and applications:  Always expect the unexpected, even in the simplest, most familiar subjects.  Never expect any ontology to be finished and accurate in all its details.

Reference and excerpts below.

John

--------------------------

How light can vaporize water without the need for heat

https://news.mit.edu/2024/how-light-can-vaporize-water-without-heat-0423

Surprising “photomolecular effect” discovered by MIT researchers could affect calculations of climate change and may lead to improved desalination and drying processes. 

It’s the most fundamental of processes — the evaporation of water from the surfaces of oceans and lakes, the burning off of fog in the morning sun, and the drying of briny ponds that leaves solid salt behind. Evaporation is all around us, and humans have been observing it and making use of it for as long as we have existed.  And yet, it turns out, we’ve been missing a major part of the picture all along.

In a series of painstakingly precise experiments, a team of researchers at MIT has demonstrated that heat isn’t alone in causing water to evaporate. Light, striking the water’s surface where air and water meet, can break water molecules away and float them into the air, causing evaporation in the absence of any source of heat.

The astonishing new discovery could have a wide range of significant implications. It could help explain mysterious measurements over the years of how sunlight affects clouds, and therefore affect calculations of the effects of climate change on cloud cover and precipitation. It could also lead to new ways of designing industrial processes such as solar-powered desalination or drying of materials.

 

[Ravi Sharma]

John

Yes Great physics and new measurement but known phenomena here are recently measured on specific targets.

The Compton and Raman scattering and remissions as well as resonances from different targets of varying wavelengths have been subjects of physics.

Relevant similar prior works have included:

• In the late 1990 BRDF studies at NASA for studying light of different wavelengths incident and reflected or scattered at different angles especially for multispectral and thematic imagery. This has lineage to Gwynn Suits models at U Mi and also Purdue studies that Venkat from Columbia U showed us in the last few weeks. Polarizations and Lambertial or specular reflectances are more parameters of measurements. SImilar were Harvard studies on sharing of sunlight in a forest canopy (Ref. Gadgil)!
• Your comment definitely implies ontologies with such models need to be dynamically updated for inclusion of physics models.
• A similar eye opener, and as all of you know the similar reason for sky to be blue ( is not rayleigh scattering) is related to Mie scattering and for oceans the water exists in groups of nanoparticles and not necessarily as continuum of H20 molecules, even without ligand!
• As they will vary wavelengths of photons, not only will they knock off H2O but many other resonant reflectors.
• As they will find for the desalination, thermal photons (heat or Infrared) will be more productive but who knows! until similar measurements are done?

Regards.

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the email, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/2e2704fdb34746f5a462bf2282dd540a%40bestweb.net.

[Alex Shkotin]

John,

The discovery of a new phenomenon (if it is confirmed) is a holiday for all physicists, but especially for theorists, because they need to explain it. As Landau said, “Theorists are bored without experimenters.”

Here's their work: "Solar-driven evaporation rates using porous absorbers have been reported to exceed the theoretical thermal evaporation limit, but the mechanism of this phenomenon remains unclear." https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2312751120 

This is how Physics lives.

A new theorem (description of the phenomenon) will appear in the framework of the theory, and then a proof (based on physical laws).

Well, for now we have a hypothesis.

The effect itself is most likely insignificant, otherwise it would have been discovered earlier.

The very phenomenon of photons separating water molecules does not seem revolutionary. After all, photons are energy. I think Ravi writes about this.

Appendix [1] provides an example of the theorem (in the last line) and its proof from the framework of the theory of undirected graphs. Next will be the framework of the theory of Statics.

Let me point out that in the last column we name mental actions with knowledge: a-priory, union, summation. In addition to abduction, deduction and induction.

Alex

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374265191_Theory_framework_-_knowledge_hub_message_1 

пт, 3 мая 2024 г. в 17:58, John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>:

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or

unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/2e2704fdb34746f5a462bf2282dd540a%40bestweb.net.

[Ravi Sharma]

Alex

This Physics demonstration is not in that class of path breaking discovery, yes its applications may turn out to be pathbreaking especially if this could also become a massive source of Hydrogen on which i have been working for past 20 years (for energy generated by H2).

One more parameter in the last mail from me which is very important is the intensity of light or number of photons at the frequency found to be effective.

Regards

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

unsubscribe to the email, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/CAFxxRORcwPDKVFUsESBhKrTjJGdrZGEVF%2BTTE1x7ocox3CSkww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi,

Exactly. The only thing I'd like to show is how to keep our scientific knowledge all in one place and structured in a way this knowledge is ready for algorithmic knowledge processing.

So all I need is that they put their result in the Physics theory framework, after they found an explanation for this phenomena.

And at the end of the email I am just reporting what kind of knowledge processing do we have when we prove a theorem in math.

Regards,

Alex

сб, 4 мая 2024 г. в 10:38, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5cuhh4MZCr%2BgGOgSamMSUAuyAfcQ9RsnSohLZhqkJ0Yhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John F Sowa]

Ravi and Alex,

It's true that the idea itself is not unreasonable.  What is amazing is that it's about some of the most common things in everybody's life:  sun, water, and clouds.   But nobody noticed.

Source:   https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2312751120 

Note the last line of the paragraph labeled "significance":  "Such a photomolecular evaporation process could be happening widely in nature. It may significantly impact the earth’s water cycle, climate change, and has potential clean water and energy technology applications."   

Alex:  The effect itself is most likely insignificant, otherwise it would have been discovered earlier. 

No.  The effects are well known and very important.  Scientists at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) have been using the fastest available computers to study clouds and evaporation since the 1950s.  And at every stage, they bought the fastest available computers to do the simulations.   Since then, many different groups around the world are computing the world weather on a daily basis.  Those computations take those effects into account.

The fact that evaporation rates in clouds are faster than predicted by heat transfer alone is significant and had been unexplained.   This study is the first discovery of a mechanism that may explain the discrepancy..

Note that the authors call it a "hypothesis".  The implications are extremely important, and I'm sure that scientists around the world are making plans to replicate the results with a wide variety of methods for bouncing photons off liquid water.

Importance for ontology:  A  detailed ontology of everything would be extremely fragile.   Even something as common as sun, water, and clouds can interact in unknown ways that may be revised at any time  The top level is most useful for classification, not detailed reasoning or computation.

Summary:  A TLO is most useful for common terminology that is widely shared for communication among independent working groups.  Different groups that share info may interpret the details and define them by very different specialized ontologies.

The most complex reasoning is done at the detailed levels, not the upper levels.  For the TLO, a simple hierarchy is sufficient.   That is why OWL can be widely used -- the hierarchy is the most important part,  The details may be computed by many different methods.  Decidability is irrelevant.

John

 

---

From: "Ravi Sharma" <drravi...@gmail.com>

Alex

This Physics demonstration is not in that class of path breaking discovery, yes its applications may turn out to be pathbreaking especially if this could also become a massive source of Hydrogen on which i have been working for past 20 years (for energy generated by H2).

One more parameter in the last mail from me which is very important is the intensity of light or number of photons at the frequency found to be effective.

Regards

Thanks.

Ravi

[Bobbin Teegarden]

John, a question re your suggested hierarchies below: 

 

I have been frustrated by owl’s lack of composition.  Even UML has composition (and aggregation, a special case of composition).   I have been working with holons and holonic structures (for contexts and such) and need compositions.  Pat Hayes once told me that there were lots of composition/mereology ontologies out there, just pick one.  Frustrating.

 

Your suggestions solicited.  How would I model complex holonic structures on OWL?

 

Thanks, Bobbin

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/0b99db4173ce441a919f674ff74413c5%40bestweb.net.

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[John F Sowa]

Bobbin,

I changed the title for this topic.  Before discussing any issues of modeling anything, it's important to start with an example.   I suggest that we make this topic an Ontolog project:  

You send us a specification of whatever holonic structures you would like to represent.   Instead of using OWL, I suggest that we use Controlled English for two subsets of Common Logic:  (1) A type hierarchy specified by Aristotle's syllogisms, and (2) Full first-order logic for the constraints.

Then anybody who prefers OWL can map the controlled English to OWL (if they can).  If they can't, that would show why you had difficulty in mapping your problems to OWL.  I also recommend controlled natural languages (CNLs) for any other languages anybody would prefer.  But we can stick with CE for the Ontolog discussion.

For a tutorial on Controlled English (CE) and its mapping to logic, see Patterns of Logic and Ontology:  https://jfsowa.com/talks/patolog1.pdf .  Those are slides that I used for the first day of a 5-day short course that I taught in 2019.  Patolog1 should be sufficient for an intro to CE.  If anybody needs more examples, see Patolog2, 3, 4, or 5.

And by the way, these slides are closely related to my book Knowledge Representation, which was published in 2000, but they were updated with another 20 years of publications and collaboration with Arun Majumdar and other colleagues in our VivoMind company.  I discuss some VivoMind examples in various slides, especially Patolog4 and 5. 

If you still have any of the notes that Pat Hayes sent you, I suggest that you package all of them in one PDF together with whatever holonic specifications you are working on.  Then send them to us as just one file.  It's better to keep it all together instead of putting them in a collection of a lot of little files.

And by the way, if anybody has trouble with CE, just look at the examples and make your best guess.  That is how we designed the controlled English for VivoMind and for our new Permion company.  It's very forgiving.  It never says "Error".  It just comes back with an English echo and the question "Is this what you mean?"  If not, you can revise it until you're happy with the echo.

My personal opinion about the SW stack:  It's legacy software that nobody should ever need to learn or use.  All knowledge representations should be specified in CNLs supplemented with diagrams.  The only people who would have to use other notations should be those who spent years in designing and/or learning them.  Today we have the technology for supporting that policy.

John

 

---

From: "Bobbin Teegarden" <te...@earthlink.net>

[Alex Shkotin]

Bobbin,

Please allow me to add the answer given by meta.ai to your question:

OWL (Web Ontology Language) is a semantic web language used to represent knowledge in a machine-readable form. Modeling complex holonic structures in OWL can be achieved by leveraging its support for describing complex relationships and hierarchies. Here's a high-level approach:

1. Define the holon concepts: Create OWL classes to represent the different types of holons and their components.
2. Establish relationships: Use OWL properties to define the relationships between holons, such as part-of, has-component, and depends-on.
3. Create a hierarchical structure: Use OWL's subclassing mechanism to represent the hierarchical relationships between holons.
4. Use property chains: Define property chains to represent complex relationships between holons, such as "part-of" and "has-component" chains.
5. Employ OWL's built-in constructs: Leverage OWL's constructs like union, intersection, and complement to model complex holonic structures.
6. Utilize annotation properties: Use annotation properties to provide additional information about the holons and their relationships.

Some specific OWL features that can be useful for modeling complex holonic structures include:

• owl:Class: Define classes to represent holon types
• owl:ObjectProperty: Define properties to represent relationships between holons
• rdfs:subClassOf: Establish hierarchical relationships between holons
• owl:propertyChainAxiom: Define property chains
• owl:unionOf, owl:intersectionOf, and owl:complementOf: Model complex relationships and hierarchies

Keep in mind that the specific implementation will depend on the details of your holonic structure and the requirements of your use case. You may also want to consider using OWL tools and editors, such as Protégé, to facilitate the modeling process.

If you have any further questions or need more specific guidance, feel free to ask!

Alex

сб, 4 мая 2024 г. в 20:02, Bobbin Teegarden <te...@earthlink.net>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/024601da9e44%24d90db590%248b2920b0%24%40earthlink.net.

[John F Sowa]

Alex.

The answer generated by meta.ai shows why meta.ai is a horrible source of advice.

OWL is legacy software.  It was obsolete on Day 1 because some very intelligent  logicians had an untested theory about the value of decidability.  Please read or reread "Fads and fallacies about logic" https://jfsowa.com/pubs/fflogic.pdf

Unfortunately, Tim Berners-Lee allowed  voters who didn't understand the issues to vote for a  terrible solution.  As a result many people are stuck with this dead-end product.

Please note my recommendation to Bobbin:  Let's do a study project where we represent Bobbin's requirements in a version of controlled English.  Then people who like OWL can map the CE version to OWL, and other people can map the CE to Aristotle's four sentence types plus a version of FOL.

For basic info about CE, see Patterns of Logic and Ontology:  https://jfsowa.com/talks/patolog1.pdf

John

PS:  As you know, 'sowa' is Polish for 'COBA'.  As I said in my previous note, I am unhappy that my totem animal has been disgraced by such a terrible piece of software.

 

---

From: "Alex Shkotin" <alex.s...@gmail.com>

[Alex Shkotin]

John,

OWL2 is just a tool. And as any tool it may be useful for one task and wrong for another.

meta.ai is just another tool. And as Lex Fridman told Sam Altman: he uses LLM for brainstorming.

I pointed Bobbin to meta.ai because it knows OWL2 very well, even better than my favorite claude.ai.

For example see [1]. It may be useful for training on OWL2 understanding. But as usual we do not trust LLM.

The question of Bobbin is very specific "How would I model complex holonic structures on OWL?"

And for me you wrote that we need here concretization as an opposite to abstraction: please give us an example of your holonic structure.

Because for me holonic is a property of relationships: one of them is holonic, other - not. But we formalize a particular relationship. And of course it is interesting to formalize this feature HOLONIC(R1).

Your idea "Let's do a study project where we represent Bobbin's requirements in a version of controlled English." is great! As most of the knowledge may be verbalized and then formalized. For example all data may be verbalized and feeded to LLM.

We have 50++ CE. My favorite is ACE. And I am happy to know your team has its own. 

We don't even know the domain of reality Bobbin is formalizing a knowledge of.

And for undirected graphs theory and structures, I can put CE knowledge to theory [2] or task [3] framework like this,

rus	Пусть e1, e2 - два ребра. e1 смежно e2 еите e1 и e2 являются различными и имеют общую концевую вершину.
eng	Let e1, e2 be two edges. e1 is adjacent to e2 if and only if e1 and e2 are different and have a common terminal vertex.
yfl	declaration adjacent func(TV edge edge) (e1 e2) ≝ {e1≠e2} (∃v:vertex enp(v e1) and enp(v e2))).

Here we have a definition of adjacent relation for two edges. I am not sure it is holonic.

And I would be happy to add in this block of theory framework two lines: for CL and for OWL2.

The main point here is that we have a lot of textbooks for ugraphs theory, but framework should be one in the era of WWW 👏

Alex

[1]

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374265191_Theory_framework_-_knowledge_hub_message_1

[3] (RUS)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379189848_Karkas_zadac_Konkretnye_zadaci_norgrafii_na_konkretnoj_strukture 

(ENG) is practically ready here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TI6lgMiXL01v_-fdd1DOKhrsLWWFykz6wltRP0R5B-8/edit?usp=sharing

Please, comment.

вс, 5 мая 2024 г. в 22:57, John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>:

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/e74ae5699c7b4f9bbe5c7f51d9bded0f%40bestweb.net.

[John F Sowa]

Alex,

I completely agree with the following three points:

Alex:  OWL2 is just a tool. And as any tool it may be useful for one task and wrong for another.  meta.ai is just another tool. And as Lex Fridman told Sam Altman: he uses LLM for brainstorming.  I pointed Bobbin to meta.ai because it knows OWL2 very well, even better than my favorite claude.ai.

Re OWL2:   As I said and as Jim Hendler agreed. decidability was a disaster that destroyed the expressive power of OWL and made it far more complicated than it should be.   Jim is the person who specified the DAML requirements, which led to the Semantic Web.    Please read or reread the following article, which Jim originally thought he would hate.  But when he read it, he liked it, he agreed with it, and he accepted it for publication:

Fads and fallacies about logic:  https://jfsowa.com/pubs/fflogic.pdf

Remember:  Jim specified the requirements, which Tim Berners-Lee supported in his winning proposal for the Semantic Web.  Neither the requirements nor the winning proposal mentioned decidability.  Tim B-L proposed SWeLL (Semantic Web Logic Language), which later evolved into the ISO Standard for Common Logic.  As fflogic.pdf shows, decidability was a DISASTER that destroyed the expressive power of OWL.   That is not an opinion, it's a fact.  Read it.

Re Lex Fridman told Sam Altman: he uses LLM for brainstorming.

I agree that is an excellent use for LLMs.  ABDUCTION (AKA educated guessing) is a fancy name for brainstorming.  As guessing. abduction is a very important for generating hypotheses that must be evaluated by deduction, testing, and induction.  For those who don't know how to do deduction, testing, and induction, guessing can be horribly misleading -- even dangerous and hallucinogenic.

Alex:  I pointed Bobbin to meta.ai because it knows OWL2 very well, even better than my favorite claude.ai. 

Bobbin has been using OWL2.  She does not need that trivial summary.  She needed a more expressive logic that was not eviscerated by decidability.   A type hierarchy along the lines of Aristotle's syllogisms plus first-order logic is simpler, more expressive, and more efficient than OWL2.  It is also a subset of the ISO Standard for Common Logic.

Some people claim that FOL is hard to read. I admit that better notations can be used.  That is why Common Logic allows any notation that supports the formal definition to be called a CL dialect.  I recommended Controlled English (CE).  The exercise of mapping a specification to CE is much easier and faster than mapping it to any formal notation of any kind.

Alex:  the framework should be one in the era of WWW 

The WWW project lasted from 2000 to 2005.  It ended with a tiny fraction of the goals Tim B-L had proposed in 2000.   He tried to get more funding to continue after 2005, but it was rejected.

 In 2004, the IKRIS project was started with US gov't funding because they realized that much more was needed.  For the original documents generated by that project, see https://jfsowa.com/ikl .

The ISO standard for Common Logic is one of the projects that evolved from Tim's proposal for SWeLL (Semantic Web Logic Language).   It inspired some of the people involved in the IKRIS project. The IKRIS project extended CL to an even richer language called IKL.   Unfortunately, funding to continue the IKRIS project beyond 2006 was also killed.

Today, we are in a new era of Ai.  The most useful and reliable applications of LLMs support machine translation and natural language front ends to computer systems.  That is why an English-like (or CNL) front-end to any kind of software is the current mainstream.  

The entire SW stack is now legacy software.  It's not the wave of the future.  It's the dead hand of the past.

John

 

---

From: "Alex Shkotin" <alex.s...@gmail.com>

[Kingsley Idehen]

Hi John,

On 5/6/24 2:20 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

Today, we are in a new era of Ai.  The most useful and reliable applications of LLMs support machine translation and natural language front ends to computer systems.  That is why an English-like (or CNL) front-end to any kind of software is the current mainstream.  

The entire SW stack is now legacy software.  It's not the wave of the future.  It's the dead hand of the past.

John

What comprises the Semantic Web stack, from your perspective?

From my vantage point, the Semantic Web project was designed to create a vast global entity relationship graph, constructed using hyperlinks. In this global graph, hyperlinks serve as the naming mechanism for entities, entity types, and entity relationship types. I may not have mentioned this last year, but the symbiotic relationship between AI chatbots and a Semantic Web was the focal point of a lecture I delivered at Brown University as part of their hypertext program [1][2].

While OWL isn't the essence of a Semantic Web for me, I find certain aspects of it quite useful in this context.

Furthermore, the rampant inaccuracies or "hallucinations" in LLM responses challenge their role as infallible oracles. However, high-quality knowledge graphs within the extensive Linked Open Data Cloud offer clear examples of the symbiotic relationship between the Semantic Web and LLM-based bots i.e., when loosely-coupled with a Chat bot they minimize hallucinations. I have devoted many hours to this topic and my team at OpenLink has developed complete applications leveraging LLMs.

I can delve deeper with anyone interested in exploring the applications we've been able to build by putting LLMs in a sandbox such that they focus on natural language processing which is what they are very good at, leaving knowledge-sensitive issues to a back-end DBMS or Knowledge Management platform.

Links:

[1] LinkedIn Post about this topic

[2] Semantic Web and LLM-based Chat Bot Symbiosis

[3] Reducing Hallucinations in ChatGPT using Predefined Query Templates scoped to Knowledge Graphs

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   
Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com
Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
              http://kidehen.blogspot.com

Profile Pages:
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
        : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this

[Nadin, Mihai]

Dear and respected Kingsley Idehen: you wrote-

I can delve deeper with anyone interested in exploring the applications we've been able to build by putting LLMs in a sandbox such that they focus on natural language processing which is what they are very good at, leaving knowledge-sensitive issues to a back-end DBMS or Knowledge Management platform.

Would you?

How is your approach different from MindStudio.com (Shapiro’s operation)?

Respectfully,

Mihai Nadin

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/fcbb6b28-4c5b-4afc-ae5b-41a77da03310%40openlinksw.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

John,

We are forced to formalize our knowledge recorded in natural language because for formal languages there are processors and knowledge processing algorithms.

What knowledge processing algorithms are there for this language? That is the question.

Not everything can be expressed in OWL2, but the reasoner can test my knowledge for consistency. And I can, for example, build a hierarchy of concepts and relationships based on their definitions.

It is not the language itself that rules the show, as there are very powerful languages, but the tools that we have for working with texts in this language.

Most engineering calculations are generally straightforward calculations based on formulas. Just calculations on structures.

Anyway my question is much simpler as BT has. How to formalize this definition in OWL2, CL:

Let e1, e2 be two edges. e1 is adjacent to e2 if and only if e1 and e2 are different and have a common terminal vertex.

Alex

пн, 6 мая 2024 г. в 21:20, John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>:

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/2b1dc3a4febd4711a1c3765ac3fe99b6%40bestweb.net.

[Kingsley Idehen]

Hi Nadin,

On 5/6/24 10:13 PM, Nadin, Mihai wrote:

Dear and respected Kingsley Idehen: you wrote-

I can delve deeper with anyone interested in exploring the applications we've been able to build by putting LLMs in a sandbox such that they focus on natural language processing which is what they are very good at, leaving knowledge-sensitive issues to a back-end DBMS or Knowledge Management platform.

Would you?

Yes.

Note: I recently shared a link to a post I published about the Uniprot Protein Knowledge Graph, which includes over 140 billion statements represented as RDF triples. In that post, I demonstrated how to use example queries published by the Uniprot team to create predefined query templates that work seamlessly with ChatGPT.

For our deployed solution example, we focused on a universally applicable use case: enhancing Customer Support. Every organization seeks to continually improve this area. Thus, we developed a chatbox widget that combines the strengths of conversational UI/UX and a Knowledge Graph (deployed as part of the Semantic Web).

Using the chatbox:

Simply visit any of the following webpages and engage with the chatbot by asking questions or selecting one of the conversation openers:

1. OpenLink Software Home Page
2. Virtuoso Home Page
3. ODBC & JDBC Data Access Drivers Home Page

How does it work?

Here’s a link to an animated GIF that showcases the flow of activity from the initial prompt to the response.

The interaction process is straightforward:

1. The user submits a prompt to the OpenLink Personal Assistant (OPAL), which acts as a protective layer around ChatGPT or other LLMs, such as Mistral.
2. Through external function integration between OPAL and ChatGPT, a context for interaction is established that drives the prompt completion pipeline, including Knowledge Graph lookups.
3. The response is returned to the user, with a notice indicating whether the response was sourced from our knowledge base or inferred by ChatGPT.

To serve its purpose while supporting anonymous access and managing costs with OpenAI, we implement fine-grained attribute-based access controls. These controls create a sandbox environment where steps 1-3 operate under a strictly enforced usage policy.

The system I describe relies on several key components:

1. RDF: A data definition language that accommodates a variety of notations, syntaxes, and data serialization formats.
2. SPARQL: A query language for performing declarative operations on RDF statements stored in a Knowledge Base or Knowledge Graph, ensuring both performance and scalability required for public web deployment (via our Virtuoso platform).
3. Reasoning and Inference: Integrated into the underlying data management platform (Virtuoso) to enhance data manipulation and query outcomes.

The items above are crucial parts of a Semantic Web technology stack, providing demonstrable utility in this use case and many others.

How is your approach different from MindStudio.com (Shapiro’s operation)?

I am unfamiliar with those products, so I can’t comment :)

Regards,

Kingsley

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CH0PR01MB69063F86416B0744046BBA11DAE42%40CH0PR01MB6906.prod.exchangelabs.com.

​

[Burkett, William [USA]]

Ontologers:

 

I’m currently reading about the cataloging and classification practices in the field of Library and Information Science; this reading raises questions that I’d like to get this community’s input on.  The stated goal of these efforts is to “organize all of human knowledge” to enable discovery and research.  The Library of Congress Classification Scheme and Subject Headings (two distinct things)  are example of these knowledge organizing structures.

 

Has anyone in the Ontolog Community ever used or done a comparison of L&IS cataloging/classification work in their work on ontologies?  They both are about “organizing knowledge” of our world so it seems like there is or should be some kind of relationship.  I’ve been a member here for many years and don’t recall ever seeing anyone mention library classification work relative to what we’re doing here.

 

Bill Burkett

[Ravi Sharma]

Bill

Have been a member of FGDC (NASA related) and Digital Libraries initiative participant including seminars and National Library of Congress DC area.

What you mention, It can only be done more properly as Ontologies, but entities and relation types are then catalogue-able, and classifications can be viewed as Knowledge Graphs.

However, Ranganathn's colon classification and Dewey systems are at best used in Hierarchical fashion.

Ranganathn's work uses Basic attributes that are themselves rooted in ontologies (TLO like) but these are indirect and only drive attribute types and hence do ultimately have internal effects of using ontological basis. But many libraries use Dewey?

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/PH0PR06MB8144F3925BB7963301D11FBA91E52%40PH0PR06MB8144.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Dr. Minaxi A P]

Dear Bill Burkett, 

Thank you for sharing the information. The LIS discipline has a core subject namely Knowledge ORganization with specific tools i.e. Colon Classification, DDC, UDC, and many more. The Colon Classification and UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) tool is extreme to classify any subject of knowledge world and any entities. It has many principles to classify subjects, terms, and entities. 

Thank you     

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/PH0PR06MB8144F3925BB7963301D11FBA91E52%40PH0PR06MB8144.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Bill

I agree with your question. Particularly interesting is the relationship between the mentioned structures and TLO.

Of course, the specific task is to algorithmically transform these structures into structures in some ontological language.

This is what Google immediately gave for the query “ontology of Library of Congress Classification Scheme and Subject Headings”:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307804176_La_LC_classification_come_linked_data 

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5004503.pdf

http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:213545/FULLTEXT01.pdf

If you have materials on the topic “organize all of human knowledge,” let me read it.

I have a narrower System of Sciences project in mind, but I am coming from below: now we need to formalize a specific science: Statics.

Alex

чт, 9 мая 2024 г. в 00:17, 'Burkett, William [USA]' via ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>:

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/PH0PR06MB8144F3925BB7963301D11FBA91E52%40PH0PR06MB8144.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[João Oliveira Lima]

Hi Bill,

In Library and Information Science, the primary tools are Cataloging and Indexing, underpinned by Classification Systems and Thesauri (or Controlled Vocabularies).

These tools were developed in an era when cataloging was performed using cards, with the primary goal of physically locating a book on a library shelf—essentially a one-dimensional classification. More sophisticated systems like Raganathan's and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) consider multiple dimensions. For instance, Raganathan's system incorporates five dimensions: PMEST (Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time).

With the rise of digital libraries, it is now feasible to assign multiple classifications to an item, circumventing the limitations of physical space. Additionally, the precision and cost-efficiency provided by Artificial Intelligence (AI) make it viable to use additional classification systems to meet more specific needs.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) may further transform the role of Thesauri. LLMs excel in handling language nuances like polysemy, ambiguity, and multilingual contexts. Consequently, the traditional thesaural equivalence relationship (Use <> Used For) may become outdated. I predict that LLMs will enhance the role of classification systems—potentially using multiple systems simultaneously—and diminish the reliance on Thesauri, marking a shift from syntactic (keyword-based) to semantic (meaning-translated through embeddings) search.

João Lima

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/PH0PR06MB8144F3925BB7963301D11FBA91E52%40PH0PR06MB8144.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Zeng, Marcia]

Hi, Bill,

Good questions. Thanks to João Lima who already provided very meaningful answers. Here I would like to bring a reference for you to have a look:

Biagetti, Maria Teresa. 2021. “Ontologies as knowledge organization systems”. Knowledge Organization 48, no. 2: 152-176. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, eds. Birger Hjørland and Claudio Gnoli, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/ontologies

There are many other chapters in this ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization. You may check the TOC and explore any specific one there: https://www.isko.org/cyclo/index.html. A lot of specific ones are listed in the section "Knowledge organizing systems (KOS)," much more than LoC's and beyond libraries (e.g.,Facet and Colon Classification (CC) that João Lima mentioned; the one I involved in writing is based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) while showing quite a lot of other related KOS vocabularies).

Hope this resource is helpful. You may contact me individually if anything else I can help.

Marcia Zeng mz...@kent.edu

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of João Oliveira Lima <joao...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 7:16 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: EXT: Re: [ontolog-forum] Library and Information Science

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CADtko5JThBB-bj-CoyhiVXZqN0FLB8idsgfev4Ki9MEJU-Vp_w%40mail.gmail.com.

CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click any links, open any attachments, or REPLY to the message unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

[Ravi Sharma]

Joao

I like the explanations given. Even if future descriptions are multidimensional like Ranganathan's, deeply rooted in Indian Philosophy, do you think that such multidimensional classification systems for future libraries are best described by Knowledge Graphs derived from Ontologies?

Regards.

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CADtko5JThBB-bj-CoyhiVXZqN0FLB8idsgfev4Ki9MEJU-Vp_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[João Oliveira Lima]

Dear Dr. Ravi Sharma,

The classification process creates equivalence classes, partitioning a large set of items into smaller, more manageable subsets, recursively. If our universe contains only 30 or 40 items, classifying is relatively ineffective. However, when dealing with 30 thousand or 40 million items, classification becomes invaluable. Classification enables the deterministic selection of items from a subclass either in a search filter field or as facets in the search results. This type of filtering is also useful as a pre-filter in a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system to prepare a context for an interaction with a Large Language Model (LLM).

Regarding your specific question, ontologies can indeed structure Subject Classification Systems in libraries. However, in most cases, it is important to note that the relationship between classes and subclasses in such systems is not a taxonomic "isA" relationship (genus-species), but rather a "hasPart" relationship (whole-part), where broader subjects are divided into more specific ones. Ontologies effectively represent this 'hasPart' relationship. Additionally, if applicable, the 'isA' (genus-species) relationship can also be incorporated within the same subject classification system at certain points with the precise support from the ontology. Whether this system is implemented within a knowledge graph or not is a technical detail that does not alter the fundamental design of the solution.

As Borges taught us, any classification is arbitrary and must be evaluated by its usefulness in relation to the universe it proposes to organize. Unbalanced classes, for example, is a common problem in these systems.

Regards

João Lima

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5dW4y49qDSyiZwv3ZZV50HQg_4JzvoSFoJeJYaW8LTW1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Burkett, William [USA]]

Thank you, to João, Marcia, Dr Sharma and others for useful and informative responses.  I was honestly surprised that so many of you knew so much about library classification and cataloging practices.  I’d read a summary of and was very intrigued by Ranganathan's Colon Classification scheme – the PMEST idea seemed to be a kind of “tagging” that was way before it’s time and I look forward to reading more about it.

 

With respect to your citation, João: 

 

“As Borges taught us, any classification is arbitrary and must be evaluated by its usefulness in relation to the universe it proposes to organize.”

 

may I append this with “… and to a community that it serves.”?   I’ve the seen the “usefulness to a community” idea mentioned several times in what I’ve read about library organizing schemes.

 

I think this Is very important to the ontolog community because this statement is just as true if you replace the word “classification” with “ontology” and “organize” with “represent”:   “Any ontology is arbitrary and must be evaluated by its usefulness in relation to the universe it proposes to represent and to the community that it serves.”

 

Bill Burkett

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CADtko5%2BnuupZJkaepxZ2RouO7OSty2M03F%3DUqra6yZHvx-zmSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ravi Sharma]

John, Alex, all

FYI I enclose the link for 4 Earth observation demonstration projects selected by NASA.

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Advances_Climate_Research_with_New_Earth_System_Explorers_Program_Proposals_999.html

As sessions from Summit 2022 which I chaired indicate, these are similar to the underpinnings of physics especially nano-physics.

Regards.

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROTNa2Ts45WYHFEREOBMH5Ng_pgDemAxCz1ZjazWGF530g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi,

It's very interesting that they take the concept study seriously: "Each selected proposal will receive $5 million to conduct a year-long mission concept study." There is a place for ontologists, including formal ones, to join.

I propose to return to the topic of the accuracy of physical laws, which are always known to be fulfilled under certain conditions with a certain accuracy. Beyond these conditions and this precision, we sometimes know nothing.

Newton somewhere in Principia writes something like this: I have written down the laws of physical things around us, but what kind of laws there are at very small distances we do not know. Perhaps they are different.

Fortunately, when solving our engineering problems, we also need only a certain precision in manufacturing parts or imparting speed to a device in order to achieve our physical goal with a certain accuracy.

For example, one can imagine that when quantum mechanics was discovered as the basis of classical mechanics, some engineers from a certain construction company were gathered for a meeting. The topic of the meeting: is it necessary to change our calculations and processes for the production of details and the construction of buildings due to the advent of quantum mechanics. And the meeting decided that these amendments can be ignored and the laws of quantum mechanics can be abstracted from.

Alex

сб, 11 мая 2024 г. в 01:25, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5c7eYh_ZC7JVD_GeXxC82nhR%3D2CR-cTVUJk0SpFn9JgkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ravi Sharma]

Alex

Yes appreciate your observations, preconditions are assumed to be met for limits of applicability of theory.

In older times we did this with perturbations and or equivalently I hope by slightly disturbing the equilibrium conditions.

Where does particle physics live today?

Regards.

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROS2sPQ_SjkN8bXp_5e8baCeXG5g9PZ6H3XOb4A4GG8vNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi,

Applicability of one or another theory or its method to some task is a crucial question. In the first volume "Mechanics" of Landau course of theoretical physics (10 volumes)  the term "neglect" was used 23 times to say which part of reality is not important for a task to be solved.

I am now on the way to Statics formalization. The particle physics is somewhere in volume IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_Theoretical_Physics#Volume_4

Formalizing the laws and reasoning rules of particle physics must be a lot of fun.

I propose another topic: where in nature do we have processes in which nuclear reactions occur? Virtually nowhere, except for the microscopic presence of isotopes. But this means that in the overwhelming majority of existing processes, and by the way in technology too, we have the inherent preservation of atomic nuclei. With rare exceptions, everything observed in nature and technology is recombination of atomic nuclei and electrons.

Ontologically emazing! 🎆

Alex

вс, 12 мая 2024 г. в 12:01, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5fF90C0Ly%3DGML%2BkdAH%3DXq2_-eHF6oUZEbsw-UnjxUPjSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Philip Jackson]

Alex,

You asked "where in nature do we have processes in which nuclear reactions occur?" and answered "Virtually nowhere...".

However, nuclear reactions occur in stars throughout the universe. Presumably, life also occurs throughout the universe, but at this point we are still searching for life on other planets than the Earth.

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 6:07 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Light can vaporize water without the need for heat

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROS_yRO_aMOiySKTL8gaceYpfh%2Bx2Tf9PuvW_ufAdve1Qw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ravi Sharma]

Alex, Phil

Appreciate your nuclear reactions in nature inputs. Most important star for us and Teller demonstrated it here for explosive power and more than ~70 years have passed and yet no controlled reactor for power and only if congress were a bit wiser beyond 6 years horizon, this would have become real.

Alex

Landau was a great physicist and I might have seen Feshbach his student in the US and certainly read the nuclear theory book when I was a student for Ph.D. 1963-66.

I will read more of Chapter 4 but I am already beyond, learning about Electroweak, Higgs, LHC resonances etc. I am amazed as to how Statistics and M, AI play a role in ascertaining these in HE p-p and other luminosity experiments.

WHat could Ontology add to this scenario in HEP?

Phil

I like your paper on Energy and solutions. Yes we will take this further as a separate 1-1 topic and connect those who are interested in Thorium.

While I agree that Thorium, which will be first used by China (neither India with largest store of ore but misdirected breeder, and US just stuck on conventional breeders), as was the success of Hydrogen cars by Japanese (Toyota and Honda) rather than General Motors where I could not make them think through, so I have just spent 2 decades developing standards for any future hydrogen vehicles etc.

Why have we given up on the success of Fusion, most ABUNDANT SOURCE OF ENERGY FOR OUR PLANET FROM SUN BUT MAY NOT BE THAT FAR from becoming a reality?

Regards,

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/MN0PR11MB62563FAE7616D33B1B907F41C1E12%40MN0PR11MB6256.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Phil,

Yes. Of course, I should have asked a more specific question. Let me try this: 

“Where in nature, at a distance of no more than plus or minus 10 km from the Earth’s surface, do processes occur in which nuclear reactions occur?” 

With the exception of already known processes: in isotopes and deposits of radioactive ores.

Just looking at the fantastically complex objects and processes on the Earth’s surface, it is interesting that the nuclei in them are stable.

Alex

вс, 12 мая 2024 г. в 15:15, Philip Jackson <philipcj...@hotmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/MN0PR11MB62563FAE7616D33B1B907F41C1E12%40MN0PR11MB6256.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi: "WHat could Ontology add to this scenario in HEP?"

For me formal ontology is a theoretical knowledge concentrator useful for any kind of theory from High Energy Physics to Undirected Graphs.

The slogan goes like this: Many textbooks but one framework for all around the Earth. 

And every textbook has an embedding from the same framework for definitions, propositions, proofs.

I took the theory of Undirected Graphs to show this way. Because what may be simpler than ugraph?

And the "textbook" using Ugraphia framework is available here.

Now keeping Hilbert's Geometry in mind I am on the way to the Statics framework.

Why not create a HEP framework?

пн, 13 мая 2024 г. в 03:23, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5fGoJsK3WBDfg7%3DBVCoj%3DSPpnXvQiZQZcGXwoJPD-8Msg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Philip Jackson]

Alex,

One might quibble that humans are part of nature, and interpret "in nature" as including everything humans do. Yet normally, "in nature" is used to exclude human achievements like nuclear fission reactors.

So, I agree it is interesting that so many complex processes can occur on the Earth's surface, with atoms having stable nuclei. We would not exist and be able to discuss the topic, without these processes. They make it likely that life exists on other planets similar to the Earth, throughout the universe.

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:52 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROR%2BXNfpiPaZwkUAQ7Nk0ojHM4ER79Kd-MA5kP4%2BOogfDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Phil,

For most objects and processes we have the law of conservation of nuclei and electrons.

The next question is: what is called an atom?

The working definition of an atom is a nucleus of charge Z and a collection of |Z| electrons moving around it and only it.

How common are atoms in real life?

There are practically none. Usually we have at least molecules where several nuclei share electrons. And then in conductors and crystals we have giant accumulations of nuclei with common electrons. But not atoms.

Are there any separately existing atoms somewhere in nature or even in a laboratory?

This is an ontological question.

Alex

пн, 13 мая 2024 г. в 14:40, Philip Jackson <philipcj...@hotmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/MN0PR11MB6256396875DBB07BE50CCDBBC1E22%40MN0PR11MB6256.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[Philip Jackson]

Alex,

Presumably atoms must be able to exist as individual entities, perhaps briefly between interactions with other atoms, or in outer space, where they may be less likely to interact with other atoms.

Yet the evidence to support this may be lacking. How one chooses to define an ontology is also an interesting question - is ontology about what is known to exist, based on experiments, or is ontology about what could exist, in principle? I suppose people could define ontologies with either point of view.

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 8:43 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROSro%2BDZcU7njrNarxLf9v-ixTcnw4k7aEnU2WDRLZ%2B98A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Phil,

Any verbal knowledge can be formalized. Even fiction and poetry🏋️

It is interesting to have an ontology of nuclei of all the types we have, including isotopes and large unstable ones. The charge only changes from 1 to 118.
This is a good foundation on the way to molecular structures. Where the nomenclature is huge. But we will still have some good definitions.

Alex

 

пн, 13 мая 2024 г. в 16:08, Philip Jackson <philipcj...@hotmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/MN0PR11MB6256AA2CD1EB40BD39426DD0C1E22%40MN0PR11MB6256.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[John F Sowa]

Alex, Phil, List,

For any branch of science or engineering, the experts who work in that field have far more knowledge about the subject than anybody called an ontologist.

Any detailed work on such subjects that is done by an ontologist who does not have a deep understanding (PhD or the equivalent and years of working in the field) is an amateur.  Any ontology such people develop without collaboration with the people who work in the field on a daily basis can be described by several adjectives:  superficial, trivial, meaningless, incompetent. worthless, and misguided.

I have taken graduate-level courses in physics, including quantum mechanics, relativity, and solid state physics.  But those were years ago.  I know enough about those subjects to admit that my knowledge is very far from being up to date.  I would not pretend to be able to specify an ontology at the level outlined below.

If you want to do anything on these issues, I suggest that you collaborate with experts who are actively working in the most advanced areas.  Without their expertise, the approach outlined below is worse than useless.  It is misguided.

John

 

---

From: "Alex Shkotin" <alex.s...@gmail.com>

[Ravi Sharma]

Alex and Phil

Good conversation on foundations and attempts to put a common framework, but I could see that both of you stop at a particular depth on HEP and this is not worrisome as the new discoveries or events are happening everyday.

John

I agree with your collaboration with domain experts and let us all remember that this opportunity moves with time as both experts and ontologists donot survive knowledge progression.

Open Q

But Frameworks rooted in first principles such as FOL, etc and those that develop metamodels and cognitive learning? are they not likely to survive longer than usecase instances alone?

Finally

Olid Earth is remarkably stable and even though a composite both proton and electron have long lives before decay however neutron being composite also is a shorter life composite.

As physics is likely to find more Photon is also a composite and like spin has two major types.

Will you then call these processes nuclear or Not, Kindly reflect, especially Phil !

Hence how can we answer this Q you posed, except for applying boundary conditions and same for Alex's framework in his nice paper cited.

Regards, not pretending just sharing!!

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/3983b4ac3ca24e3d97ba43f7389edecb%40bestweb.net.

[Philip Jackson]

Ravi and John, thanks for your comments and advice, which I accept.

Enough said on these topics, until and unless we can collaborate with domain experts.

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 6:39 PM

To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Light can vaporize water without the need for heat

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5dD14MSV9i0XbJYjjx2nBf8HxYB50BoDvBopgRz_%2BpGzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

John,

You have captured the essence of the point of formal ontologists: we do not invent new knowledge, we concentrate and formalize the knowledge of experts.

For example, I am sure that all ontologies of the OBO Foundry project were made in cooperation with experts in biology, bioinformatics, genomics and other sciences.

There is even a rule: each definition, even before being formalized, must be approved by an expert as correct. And it is best if somewhere in the annotation it is indicated where this definition was taken from or who confirmed it.

Otherwise, is it worth the effort of formalization?

Regarding simple discretions that we discussed with Phil. You gave me a great idea: to reach out to my alma mater alumni. There are a lot of physicists there.

Formalization, whether it is OWL2 ontology or KG on CODIL, is always done for verified knowledge.

But ways to concentrate the knowledge accumulated in science and technology should be discussed.

And here is the approach in the era of global access to knowledge: one framework for many textbooks, it seems to me important.

We apply theories to solve tasks, abstracting from many of the known complexities of the world's structure, but we obtain a solution with the accuracy we need.

In work that I don’t proofread up to the end, for the simplest structure - ugraph, it is shown how to solve the simplest tasks using the framework of the theory Ugraphia.

Statics is approaching and I assure you the progress of formalization will definitely be discussed with experts in such a discipline as strength of materials.

Alex

пн, 13 мая 2024 г. в 23:31, John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>:

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/3983b4ac3ca24e3d97ba43f7389edecb%40bestweb.net.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi,

We know that atoms love to stick together into molecules so much that it is almost difficult to indicate in real life a place where an atom of one type or another exists separately from its fellows. Which chemical element can be atomized? maybe melt some metal into another metal?

Well, mercury is one example: "A still increasing amount is used as gaseous mercury in fluorescent lamps, while most of the other applications are slowly being phased out due to health and safety regulations."

And here’s what’s interesting: molecules are also not averse to sticking together. And if in gasses they rush around on their own, then in liquids they constantly change adhesion partners. But further in the solid body, the molecules no longer move in it and we get a giant ugraph!

How do we manage to obtain some properties, patterns of behavior of such giant graphs from nuclei held together by a cloud of electrons?

Well, I mean, I also have questions 🌸

Alex

вт, 14 мая 2024 г. в 01:39, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5dD14MSV9i0XbJYjjx2nBf8HxYB50BoDvBopgRz_%2BpGzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Philip Jackson]

One other thing this discussion illustrates is that the nature of "existence" may be problematic for creating ontologies. How should an ontology represent physical entities that only exist when other physical entities of different types also exist?

Examples might include pairs of particles and anti-particles, atoms that we cannot find in nature except in molecules with other atoms, etc.

Wikipedia has articles on two kinds of ontology: ontology in philosphy, and ontology in information science.

For philosophy, Wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

"In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being. It investigates what types of entities exist, how they are grouped into categories, and how they are related to one another on the most fundamental level (and whether there even is a fundamental level). ..."

For information science, Wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

"In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area. The field which studies ontologies so conceived is sometimes referred to as applied ontology. Every academic discipline or field, in creating its terminology, thereby lays the groundwork for an ontology. Each uses ontological assumptions to frame explicit theories, research and applications. ..."

In the information science article, Wikipedia also says:

"What ontologies in both information science and philosophy have in common is the attempt to represent entities, including both objects and events, with all their interdependent properties and relations, according to a system of categories. In both fields, there is considerable work on problems of ontology engineering (e.g., Quine and Kripke in philosophy, Sowa and Guarino in information science),[5] and debates concerning to what extent normative ontology is possible (e.g., foundationalism and coherentism in philosophy, BFO and Cyc in artificial intelligence)."

I guess this basically answers the question. If we are concerned with information, then the nature of physical existence for entities can be a secondary topic, not fundamental to representing entities within an ontology.

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 5:45 AM

To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Light can vaporize water without the need for heat

 

Ravi,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROR0vLY3Zh6ASPgM-5FstXD0iW2u%3DNuyVXi%2B4zgg4NE%2BPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Phil,

Let me mention that we have a nice page about ontology term definitions.

I am personally with them who derive this term from the term "theory" but keeping in mind that collection of facts may also be in the theory.

But when you ask  "How should an ontology represent physical entities that only exist when other physical entities of different types also exist?" The answer is that

we divide the whole in three parts: our entity of interest, all other entities and the border between our entity and all others.

Let someone stand on the surface of the Earth and hold a cup of tea motionless in a horizontally extended hand. Let the thing (some say the system) that interests us be the cup of tea itself, and its boundary is where it interacts with the hand and air (some add light). And when he accidentally lets go of the cup, its boundary changes dramatically as contact with the hand disappears.

Identification of the system being studied and its boundaries is very important.

This cannot be done without "the nature of physical existence for entities" IMHO. We might miss something.

For example, I didn’t explicitly say that gravity acts.

In addition to definitions, part of the topic.

I did not find in SEP the article Ontology, but this is the nearest to dive

"The larger discipline of ontology can thus be seen as having four parts:

(O1)

the study of ontological commitment, i.e. what we or others are committed to,

(O2)

the study of what there is,

(O3)

the study of the most general features of what there is, and how the things there are relate to each other in the metaphysically most general ways,

(O4)

the study of meta-ontology, i.e. saying what task it is that the discipline of ontology should aim to accomplish, if any, how the questions it aims to answer should be understood, and with what methodology they can be answered.

"

Alex

вт, 14 мая 2024 г. в 16:29, Philip Jackson <philipcj...@hotmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/MN0PR11MB62569BCEE43B8AE2BE917D39C1E32%40MN0PR11MB6256.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[Philip Jackson]

Thanks, Alex.

On further thought, it is clear that ontologies often need to represent different classes of physical entities that cannot exist without each other. The classic example is "male" and "female".

Other examples like pairs of particles and anti-particles, and atoms that we cannot find in nature except in molecules with other atoms, do not change this.

So, even if an ontology is about classes of things that exist, there need not be a presumption that one class can exist without some other class. That may be true for some pairs of classes, and not true for others.

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 4:57 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] "Existence" in ontologies

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROSTtu4UhzBb1VEd%2B5qPp-TFd2Hc_fwpk%2Bu9cFpRD2hj0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Phil, 

The vast majority of physical objects can exist without other physical objects for quite a long time, although under certain conditions, mainly at the border. But many species of living beings cannot exist long enough, even if they have individuals of both sexes, but for some reason they do not produce offspring.

If we talk about classes, i.e. concepts, then the relationship between two concepts can be different depending on how they are defined. But so that from the definition of one concept the definition of another follows - here I have to think.⚗️ Well, for example, if we give a definition of an odd number, then most likely we will give a definition of an even number.

Is that what you are looking for?

Alex

ср, 15 мая 2024 г. в 14:07, Philip Jackson <philipcj...@hotmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/MN0PR11MB62560553322716A80977D4D5C1EC2%40MN0PR11MB6256.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[Philip Jackson]

Alex,

Let's take the conversation offline, for now. I'll send you an email.

Cheers,

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 8:03 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxRORRc69s7NQ2WMrUX%3DmSLBAPxvB9ye-YrYan9%2BoxJ9%3Dihw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John F Sowa]

Phil,

There is a very short answer to that question:   Use an if-then sentence (or statement in whatever logic is available).

Example:   "If entities a, b, ... c exist in System A, then entities x, y, ... z exist in A."

Aristotle's logic for ontology supported such sentences.   If you have an ontology language that does not support if-then sentences, that means it was obsolete 2300 years ago.  Flush it down the toilet.  

Better yet, put the papers in the recyling bin.  The bits don't have to be recycled.  Just reset them to 0.

John

 

---

From: "Philip Jackson" <philipcj...@hotmail.com>
Sent: 5/14/24 9:29 AM
To: "ontolo...@googlegroups.com" <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] "Existence" in ontologies

[Philip Jackson]

Thanks, John.

Good points, understood.

Phil

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 1:36 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] "Existence" in ontologies

 

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/06cc3b01896047b4b69215acd3947bcc%40bestweb.net.