That might be the wost confusion of misunderstanding i have been read: (01)
> KBL> The "ontology police" want to legislate that we build and then
>> conform OTEAO (Ontology to End All Ontologies), and if it isn't in
>> ONTEO, you are not allowed to say it. (02)
The world is the greatest unbounded but single entity; the sum, totality and
aggregation of things diversified into a multitude of collections of
subworlds with their specific constraints and boundaries; and all governed
by the fundamental laws, rules, invariants, and principles. Hence, the
logic of reality is ultimately one, there can not be many logics of the
things, although you can allow many personal perspectives and particular
truths, special things and meanings. (03)
The universe is a deep dark secret, mysterious and mystifying to human
minds. And the fundamental challenge to humanity is to provide a universal
theory/language that explains in noncryprical terms how this Ultimate
Dynamic Entity is made of, what populates it, how it changes, how its basic
constituents interrelated, etc. And this is all the legal responsibility of
a single global ontology, the global logic of reality designed as a Unified
Framework Ontology or Universal Formal Ontology (UFO). (04)
I said and repeat: without a common standard ontology as a common code of
meanings and rules, there is no base and foundation for the whole cause of
semantic technology and large-scale intelligent applications. Creating
knowledge machines with the inbuilt ontology framework implies a single code
of administrating (if you like, policing) standards, principles, rules, and
laws, all suggesting a unifying model of things. (05)
Bottom line:
The high goal of science is to approximate to an all-comprehensive and
unified description of the world, which is nothing else but a global
ontology of reality. (06)
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev (07)
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Topic maps and the "wheel" of "logical
semantics": was Re: {Disarmed} Re: OWL and lack of identifiers (08)
> Kathy,
>
> I strongly endorse that point:
>
> KBL> The "ontology police" want to legislate that we build and then
>> conform OTEAO (Ontology to End All Ontologies), and if it isn't in
>> ONTEO, you are not allowed to say it. Like all caricatures, this one
>> has a basis in reality. There are some, unfortunately, who come all
>> too close to fitting the caricature. But most people I talk to have
>> realized by now that this is a dead end -- it is a recipe for failure
>> rather than a prerequisite to success, except in very limited and
>> highly constrained problems.
>
> For a particular application, such as designing a new airplane,
> it is essential to have precise definitions of all the terms
> used in that design.
>
> But it is impossible to have a universal ontology of airplanes
> that would cover even two models by the same manufacturer,
> let alone all models by all manufacturers for all time.
>
> One thing that is not only possible, but valuable, is to have
> an *underspecified* classification of terms that could be
> specialized as needed for each application.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|