[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] April 20 session on tagging ontolog content

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Nicolas F Rouquette <nicolas.rouquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:51:52 -0700
Message-id: <44371738.9070308@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:    (01)

>This is exactly a point I will illustrate in the approach to building an
>ontology next week.   The context is critical.  You will never solve the
>semantic problems unless you can contextualize.  And, we will forever argue
>about words and ideas and concepts - and never make any substantial progress.
>This is why you cannot really tackle the semantic problems from the top down -
>it will never work except at such a primitive level that the results are
>Entity here is being used in the context of a reference model.   It is a
>representation or data structure which includes attributes and can be 
>into elements.   If I were to use the concept entity as a descriptor within an
>attribute that context would give it a different meaning.
In system engineering, Michael Jackson (be careful about the context of 
name resolution here...)
wrote a book called "Problem Frames" -- see: http://www.ferg.org/pfa/.    (02)

What you describe as the "context of a reference model" would be in PFA 
the specification of a problem frame
for a specific domain of interest. In this view, then the moreling of 
entities and relationships you describe
seem to me to correspond to an ontological specification of a problem frame.    (03)

>We must expect multiple meanings, and not assume that without contextualization
>there can be any resolution.   This is simply the way the human brain works -
>and it is the way that an ontology needs to work, too.
Ok; when you have defined a suitable ontology to make statements about a 
specific context (i.e., problem frame),
then we need a separate ontology to make statements about what we want 
to achieve in this context; i.e., somewhere,
there is a problem to solve; this means some kind of 
task/process/activity specification.    (04)

IMHO, this discussion is about specifying what "tagging ontolog" means 
as a problem frame.
This means, if I understand Denise' point, that we need to describe what 
we want to use to write ontological statements that are semantically 
precise when interpreted
in the context of the "tagging ontolog" problem frame.    (05)

-- Nicolas.    (06)

>Best regards,
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    (07)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>