Re: [ontolog-forum] Levels

[Charles D Turnitsa <CTurnits@xxxxxxx>]

Debbie,

 How about (as an example) the Bee.  The bee, as a singleton entity, can be described as having any number of complex and interdependent biological processes that work just fine within the perspective of the bee.  Yet, the hour-to-hour activities and goals of what the bee is accomplishing by means of these processes does not make sense until one introduces the knowledge of the Hive that the bee belongs to.  A higher order of meaning for the individual biological processes of the bee.

Chuck

Charles Turnitsa
Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
Old Dominion University Research Foundation
(757) 638-6315 (voice)
cturnits@xxxxxxx

-----ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----

>From: "Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Levels
>
>I am wishing for an example in nature where a subpart can be driven
>by larger whole yet both can operate independently. Not the fractal
>parts to whole relationship necessarily, more along the lines of what
>natural systems, not shapes, are super detailed and work fairly well
>at their own level then let the modular upper version plug in and
>make them more efficient?
>
>
>Debbie
>
>
>On 2/12/07, 
>Christopher Menzel
> <
>cmenzel@xxxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>
>On Feb 12, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>> You're right that import statements should not be considered part
>of
>
>>> an ontology.  I agree it's the imported axioms that are part of
>the
>
>>> ontology.
>
>>
>
>> Wait. Of course the imports statements are part
>
>> of the ontology. What are you guys talking about?
>
>
>*If* ontologies are logical theories, then it seems to me that this
>
>confuses a mechanism for saying what (some of) the axioms of an
>
>ontology are with the ontology.  Suppose I'm writing my ontology for
>
>TAMU faculty and admin again, and you've got a nice higher-level
>
>ontology for universities over there at IHMC.  My statement "import
>
>(reiterate, endorse, whatever) Pat's university ontology" is not part
>
>of my ontology; it's a mechanism for saying what my axioms are that
>
>makes efficient use of an open network.
>
>
>I'm not dogmatically wedded to the idea that formal ontologies are
>
>logical theories of some ilk, but if you're right, and my import
>
>statement is literally part of my ontology, then formal ontologies
>
>are not (in general) logical theories, and we'd better get clear
>
>about the connection between the former and the latter.  You seem to
>
>be favoring the idea that ontologies are rather more concrete than
>
>I'd been thinking.  Do you think it would be better to say that a
>
>logical theory is only one of several components of an ontology?
>
>
>-chris
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
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)