ontolog-forum
[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)

>All,
>
>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
>meaningless.
>
>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 
>decomposed
>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 
entities/relations
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,
>Denise
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/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/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/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>