Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation · HackerPapers discussions

Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation — mentioned by lkey

Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:31:37 GMT

Snark of grandparent aside: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889 if you want to read more.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation — mentioned by lidHanteyk

Sun, 25 Aug 2019 14:04:17 GMT

Haskell is not really category-theoretic. The category Hask doesn't quite line up with real-world Haskell. The disconnection is well-understood and well-documented [0][1]. Category theory can directly give us systems from theories. See the papers behind FQL/CQL for more details, especially [2] and [3]. [0] https://wiki.haskell.org/Hask [1] http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/publications/danielsson-et-a... [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation — mentioned by myWindoonn

Sun, 23 Dec 2018 15:37:59 GMT

Mathematics is metaphysics. I'd like your refutation to center on any nuance which might separate the two disciplines other than the sad fact that many philosophers don't learn much maths. Logic is metaphysics: https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf Logic is mathematical, logic is categorical (structured in a deep way amenable to category theory), maths is categorical: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/internal+logic https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/topos Ontology is categorical: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526 The…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation — mentioned by myWindoonn

Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:29:13 GMT

Unfortunately, Kialo does not have any features for structural reasoning, where the logical connections between arguments are completely formalized and precise. It relies on a human element to check each argument. Edit: How to do this formally? Look at formal systems for hints of how to do it in the 1900s, or category theory for how to do it in the modern day. [0][1] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation — mentioned by DonbunEf7

Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:41:03 GMT

Reminds me of ologs: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 The category on top of a given graph just adds path equivalences. While that might not seem like a big addition, it's crucial for restricting the structure's internal state.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation — mentioned by barakm

Wed, 21 Jun 2017 04:39:28 GMT

+1 Insightful. In fact, there's research toward showing the two are equivalent in possibility space of what can be represented/queried (https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889) But yes, linked data and graphs are super powerful once the data is triplified. Suddenly you have an abstraction above the contents of your data into the 'shape' of your data. SPARQL and RDF aren't going away, but they're the academic thing that I and others are trying to make useful. GraphQL is scratching the surface, but it's super exciting that it's scratching at all, imo. (Disclosure: Founded CayleyGraph, supporting the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation — mentioned by brudgers

Thu, 25 May 2017 12:57:26 GMT

direct link to paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1889.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.