|
Chuck,
What I began to propose to the ONTACWG several
months back was that in building the COSMO we should focus first on the
"conceptual defining vocabulary", which is the set of ontological entities that
are necessary and sufficient to define any more specific domain entity (type,
relation, function, axiom, restriction, instance). I have been too tied
down to elaborate this notion recently, but have continued to build up the
inventory of basic concepts, which will not be very different from those in the
SUMO + MILO or Cyc baseKB, but will have some differences. I am not sure
when I will be able to resume that discussion in ONTACWG -- soon, I
hope.
I am interested in any other set of basic concepts that can
be combined to produce the more complex concepts that are of greatest interest
in specific domains.
Pat
Pat, I will try to get a succinct copy of my component based ontology
model and send it to you. It is (as you can guess from my question)
being re-written and formalized, but it was the basis of my Master's Thesis
some time back. One of the things I have found about what I am
calling a "concept" in my model is that it is meaningless by itself. It
does not exist by itself, but it gives definition to any entity that exhibits
it. The "space" component in my model is the entity (which are then
related to other entities), and the definition of that "space" comes from the
complete set of "concepts" that the entity exhibits. The properties
(identifiable characteristics) that an entity can have are each tied to some
of the "concepts" that the entity exhibits. What my model
proposes, of course, is that for a domain with a finite number of entities,
there is some finite number of "concepts" that exist, which combine together
with other "concepts" to give meaning to those entities.
But, as with everything else in the model, I am still refining
on it. Within the next few months, I will have a much more formal
definition of the model, which will help with further analysis and
refinement. Chuck
Charles Turnitsa Project Scientist Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center Old Dominion University Research Foundation 7000 College Drive Suffolk, Virginia 23435 (757) 638-6315 (voice) (757) 686-6214 (fax) cturnits@xxxxxxx
-----ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote: -----
To:
"John A. Bateman" <bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes
<phayes@xxxxxxx>
Sent by:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 19/01/2007 06:29PM
cc:
"[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Defining Concept
>
> Facet
>>
>>
Assembly
>>
>> Bound or
Bounded
>>
>> Prime (as in an indivisible prime
number)
>>
>> Set
>>
>>
Totality
>>
>> or
>>
>>
Resource
>
>er... what problem is being sorted out here?
All of these
>terms are already overloaded to the nth degree
and
>have non-overlapping meanings; as does
>Aspect. If there
was ever a good example of why ontology
>can and should use an
axiomatised formalisation
>instead of natural language terms,
then
>I guess this is it! :-)
I entirely agree. It is
impossible to use a
normal English word to express something
technical without its being overloaded.
I have another
problem with this thread: I have
no idea what, er, concept is being
discussed.
Charles said:
".... a universal, non-divisible
idea. This "concept"
when combined with others forms the definition
of an entity."
Wha?? First, what distinguishes "universal" ideas
from (I presume) non-universal ones? Second, what
does it mean for
an idea to be "divisible"?
Third, what kind of combination are we
talking
about? I would suggest (following Fodor) that the
key idea
here is not the things you are calling
'concepts', which in almost every
detailed
account that has ever been put forward turn out
to be
little more than nodes in a graph or points
in a space, but rather the
'combinations' that
they take part in, or rather still the
*structure* of these combinations. It is the
space (or maybe, the
network, or the relational
structure, or whatever one wants to call it)
which matters and which gives the
points/nodes/names/identifiers in
it the
"conceptual" structure that they have.
Pat
Hayes
>
>John
B.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message
Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe:
mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared
Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To
Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or
(650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416
office
Pensacola (850)202 4440
fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667
cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared
Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|