Dear Simon, All,
Your comments well taken, just to clarify what CRM Inf intends to do:
It does never aim at replacing scholarly and scientific inferencing by
an automated machine. Its sole purpose is to document the steps of
scholarly inferencing, provenance and dependencies of knowledge used and
created. Any use of logic to automate the transition from premises to
conclusions would be documented as a use of a tool. In particular, it
does not aim at simplifying the scholarly process, only at explicating
assumptions and intermediate steps to the degree they are an apparent
stage at which other actors would take up results and continue. The CRM
is not an AI endeavor.
Personally, I do not regard that scholarly inferencing can
comprehensively be described in an adequate manner by any formal logic,
at least for the next years to come.
What I have proposed, does not simplify inference. It just describes a
frequent case, in which the propositional interpretation of a piece of
text in regarded as unambiguous, but the truth of the propositional
content is subject to an inference. The construct I propose just models
this premise. It assumses, that necessarily any scholar making such an
inference, must have an explicit believe about the provenance and
authenticity of this piece of text, and that his conclusions will depend
on the truth of this provenance assumption.
CRMInf so far had no construct to describe such a premise in a comapct way.
I did not make any statement about how the provenance assumption has
been achieved, nor what its precise form is, nor that scholarly reading
does not imply questioning the propositional interpretation, which would
be just a case just not modelled here. Nor did I make any statement
about the following kind of inference.
The simplification is only in the complexity of the model for cases in
which defaults are known to hold, here, that the propositional content
of the text has not been questioned by the actor making the inference.
It is a sort of shortcut.
But the same construct can also be used as a conclusion about the
propositional content of a piece of text.
We can never, in a realistic information system, be explicit about all
steps of argumentation. We have to rely heavily of defaults. When
starting reading a manuscript or inscription, a process of endless
details starts until we come to sets of alternative propositional
interpretations. Most of these cases can only effectively be described
in form of explications to otherwise implicit arguments. The art will be
to find out which series of arguments can reliably be documented in an
implicit way, and how later details can be added without creating a
non-monotonic representation.
If anybody still regards this as an attempt to simplify inferences, I'd
like to be pointed to my errors:-)
All the best,
Martin
On 4/4/2017 9:25 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term /factoid. /
/
/
1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated
questions that any attempt to simplify inference without explicating
them separately is likely to have problems. The issue might involve
epistemic modal logics; doxastic logics (which usually are
paraconsistent); justification logics; context logics; speech acts;
quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other fun stuff.
It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using
something like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming
operator (that)). Like CL, it's first order with quantification over
predicates.
2. The term /factoid/ has a second sense in US English, referring to a
something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely
dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB.
The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I
translate the first sense to be "a belief justified solely by a
single writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the
writing either believed the factoid to be false, or believed that
they did not know the factoid, though that could be definitional. This
sense of factoid seems to be not JTB, even if it is accidentally
true, and the form of the publication would normally be justification.
[NB: not equating JTB and /knowledge] /
Simon
On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear All,
Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model:
http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/#
<http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/#>
Best
Francesco
Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit :
Dear All,
My colleague Athina found the following paper:
Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and
computer ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist
Computing 2015; 30 (1): 86-97.
It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I
tried to formulate as "Reading" ?
Best,
Martin
On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote:
Dear All,
I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference
model for the case in which the interpretation of a text as a
proposition is not questioned, but other things are questioned:
A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a
questioned fact, such as Nero singing in Rome when it was
burning. I think Tacitus states he was singing in Rome, and
another source says he was on the countryside.
B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation =
translation of sense
C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the
Merchant of Venice, place details are mentioned that only a
person who was there could have written that. Shakespeare was
not allowed to travel abroad.
C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of
Buddha's speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages
that present past-Buddha dogmata.
I would start with A), then B), then C)
So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a
proposition, which is not believed as such.
Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to
express this proposition. This implies that the premise does not
make any sense without a provenance assumption, which must be
believed.
In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His
good will to say the truth about Nero not.
In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective
edition/name or pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned.
In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first
performance is not questioned, but who wrote the text under the
name of Shakespeare is questioned.
In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not
questioned, neither that its content mainly goes historically
back to Buddha, but the provenance of a paragraph is questioned.
Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call
"reading", which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a
comprehensible natural language proposition relative to an
explicitly stated provenance, but does not mean believing the
proposition, nor questioning the intended meaning of the text:
J1 used as premise (was premise for) : IXX Reading
IXX Reading subclass of I2 Belief (or a generalized Belief)
properties of IXX Reading:
JX1 understanding : Information Object (the cited phrase,
understanding the words)
JX2 believing provenance : I4 Proposition Set (This contains
the link from the cited phrase to the text the phrase is taken
from, and all provenance data believed. E.g. Shakespeare edition
1648(??) believed, authorship by Shakespeare questioned, etc.)
*optional:*
JX3 reading as : I4 Proposition Set (the translation of the
cited into triples. If absent, the interpretation of the cited
phrase is regarded to be obvious)
and J5 defaults to "true" (I believe all "J5
<#m_-2995047193393367931__J5_holds_to>holds to be: I6
<#m_-2995047193393367931__I6_Belief_Value>Belief Value" should
default to "True" if absent).
Then, a conclusion could be that the Information Object (cited
phrase) is not believed. In that case, we would need to
generalize I4 to be either a Named Graph or an unambiguous text.
If we do not, we could use JX1, JX3 to introduce the translation
of the cited text as formal proposition, and then use J5 to say
"FALSE": "Nero singing in burning Rome 18 to 24 July, 64 AD"
In the case of text sense interpretation, we would need a sort
of "has translation" construct, if not simply a work about
another work (FRBRoo).
The representation of a text in a formal proposition (Nero P14
performed E7 Activity P2 has type "singing" ...falls within
Destruction....)
In the case of the Buddhist text, we would need in addition the
believe in the provenance of the post-Buddha dogma, plus the
reading, resulting in a different provenance for the paragraph.
If we agree on something like that, let us see if we can
simplify or shortcut anything.
best,
Martin**
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing
list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
