Archive for the ‘Reasoning’ Category

Proceedings of the RuleML2012@ECAI Challenge

Tuesday, September 4th, 2012

Proceedings of the RuleML2012@ECAI Challenge

The paper I mentioned on yesterday: Legal Rules, Text and Ontologies Over Time [The eternal "now?"] is part of these proceedings.

Which is a very good paper.

You will also find “reasoning” about complex tax transactions, such as seeking reimbursement from the government for taxes you have not paid. (What’s complex about that I cannot say. Merely reporting the description of: Missing Trader Fraud given in one of the papers. The taxes reported lost every year remind me of RIAA estimates on piracy.

And papers that fall in between.

Posted in Reasoning, RuleML | No Comments »

Reasoning with the Variation Ontology using Apache Jena #OWL #RDF

Monday, August 27th, 2012

Reasoning with the Variation Ontology using Apache Jena #OWL #RDF by Pierre Lindenbaum.

From the post:

The Variation Ontology (VariO), “is an ontology for standardized, systematic description of effects, consequences and mechanisms of variations”.

In this post I will use the Apache Jena library for RDF to load this ontology. It will then be used to extract a set of variations that are a sub-class of a given class of Variation.

If you are interested in this example, you may also be interested in the Variation Ontology.

The VariO homepage reports:

VariO allows

  • consistent naming
  • annotation of variation effects
  • data integration
  • comparison of variations and datasets
  • statistical studies
  • development of sofware tools

It isn’t clear on a quick read, how VariO accomplishes:

  • data integration
  • comparison of variations and datasets

Unless it means uniform recordation using VariO enables “data integration,” and “comparison of variations and datasets?”

True but what nomenclature, uniformly used, does not enable “data integration,” and “comparison of variations and datasets?”

Is there one?

Posted in Bioinformatics, Jena, OWL, RDF, Reasoning | No Comments »

..the reasoning that people actually engage in

Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice

A self-description of the journal appears in the first issue, July of 1978:

However, as we found out at the Windsor Symposium, informal logic means many things to many people. Let us then declare our conception of it. For the time being, we shall use this term to denote a wide spectrum of interests and questions, whose only common link may appear to be that they do not readily lend themselves to treatment in the pages of “The Journal of Symbolic Logic.” More positively, we think of informal logic as covering the gamut of theoretical and practical issues that come into focus when one examines closely, from a normative viewpoint, the reasoning that people actually engage in. Subtract from this the exclusively formal issues and what remains is informal logic. Thus our conception is very broad and liberal, and covers everything from theoretical issues (theory of fallacy and argument) to practical ones (such as how best to display the structure of ordinary arguments) to pedagogical questions (how to design critical thinking courses; what sorts of material to use). [I changed the underlining of "The Journal of Sybolic Logic" to quotes to avoid confusion with hyperlinking. Emphasis added.]

“…the reasoning that people actually engage in” sounds like it would interest topic map authors.

Jack Park forwarded this to my attention.

Posted in Argumentation, Reasoning | No Comments »