Pat & All: (01)
I hope I didn't lose context by missing the beginning of this thread,
but it seems if we were to model cognition and not a house there would
be good reason to include stuff like Concept. (02)
Consider for example specifying ... (03)
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p32.html (04)
Our model, or specification would include: conception, impression,
consciousness, unity, substance, being, representamen, interpretant,
ground, quale, sign ... (05)
I'm a bit of a newbie to FOL, so any advice would be appreciated. I
might write an incomplete specification of Sec 1. of Peirce above as the
following: (06)
(assertion (=> (forall (?x ?y) (and (conception ?x)(impression ?y)))
(reduceToUnity ?x ?y)) :name 'sense2unity) (07)
Or in OWL I could say something like ... (08)
http://www.rickmurphy.org/categories.owl (09)
FYI - This actually works in Pellet and Swoop ... (010)
Anyway, I suggest the answer depends on what domain we're specifying. If
it's cognition as specified by "On a New List of Categories," seems we'd
be hard pressed to leave these out. (011)
--
Best wishes, (012)
Rick (013)
email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
blog: http://spout.rickmurphy.org
cell: 703-201-9129 (014)
Pat Hayes wrote:
> I agree with Pat C (below), but here's my special
> worry and why I'm going to try to do without the
> c-word. Take an example. Right now at weekends Im
> restoring an old house. My first Saturday task is
> to cut some furring strips: long thin pieces of
> wood nailed to the studs, used to make a wall a
> bit thicker (to give room for a drainpipe.) So,
> here's my question: is "furring strip" a concept?
> Hmm, I don't know. I certainly think about
> furring strips, and so if thinking involves
> concepts then there must be a furring strip
> concept, I guess. But I don't think I need to
> refer to it or talk about it. Concepts aren't the
> kind of thing that one can drive a nail through,
> and furring strips are. So apparently furring
> strips themselves are not concepts. And 'furring
> strip' is an English noun phrase, which I guess
> isn't a concept either; and the phrase means the
> wooden thing (or maybe the class of such things,
> or the property of being such a thing, or
> whatever: but not a concept, anyway). So concepts
> don't seem to come into the language story or the
> house-building story. Suppose I set out to make a
> house-restoration ontology and I have an OWL
> class called oldHouse:FurringStrip (which is a
> subclass of oldHouse:SmallWoodPart, etc.); then
> the class name is a URI and the class itself is a
> OWL class, and I don't need to speak of concepts
> to make sense of this. The OWL semantics doesn't
> mention concepts anywhere. So where do the
> concepts come into the story? What I certainly
> want to avoid is saying or implying that either
> the English 'furring strip' or the OWL
> oldHouse:FurringStrip *mean* or *denote* a
> concept. They both refer to something physical,
> or a class of physical things. I don't get houses
> built with concepts: I have to buy real, heavy
> stuff from Home Depot and drive it there in my
> truck. The safest way to avoid this mistake, I
> think, is to just not mention the concepts at
> all. I don't seem to need to mention them.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>>Deborah, Patrick
>>thanks -
>>
>>I have scanned Barry's (intringuing) paper, but
>>do not have time to study in detail - being o
>>and c
>>not central to my problems right now - I also
>>did a keyword search in the paper for
>>concept,conceptual and and conceptualization,
>>with zero results (bug in my world? - or have
>>they manged to make the c world disappear
>>without trace and still discuss the notions
>>attached to it in the paper? - please indicate
>>what page/line is the argument if you could)
>>Will study in more detail when I have time.
>>
>>You mean there is no actual concrete proposal to
>>ban the term 'concept' from the discourse,
>>rather an informal suggestion or just avoid it -
>>phew
>>
>>I would agree that we need to objectivize what
>>is in our mind, and that ontology building is
>>part of that effort. But the mind (individual)
>>is the only organ that we have capable of
>>producing abstraction
>>and not sure if we should detach ourselves from
>>the only generic term that we have to refer to
>>the representation of that abstraction (the
>>conceptualization) that we are capable of.
>>
>>I need to project the product of my mind (a
>>concept) into the physical world, and need an
>>umbrella term for it (apologies for the
>>circularity). Linguistic fuzziness has a role,
>>although I agree it is not always the best
>>choice.
>>
>>I remember when I went to school teachers asked
>>us to avoid using the term 'thing' and asked us
>>to make an effort to use a more appropriate word
>>, for example, instead of saying I feel
>>something (undefined) we should look for a more
>>appropriate vocabulary (I feel an emotion, or I
>>feel this and feel that), thus helping us to
>>develop our linguisti skills by learning how to
>>use more precise words
>>
>>
>>I am not sure that our languages are adequately
>>developed to be able to support and express all
>>the abstract generalizations/ concepts that the
>>mind can conceive, maybe thats why we use a
>>generalization of something abstract that we do
>>not have words for as 'concept'. Generalizations
>>are necessary because they allow anyone to
>>visualize their own thing,
>>
>>But if it is a choice of words that you are
>>after (avoiding to use a term which is
>>potentially confusing to some) then I respect
>>the choice, except that I wont be able to find
>>relevant paragraph where the notion of 'concept'
>>is discussed if you avoid it.
>>
>>I still think if we avoid 'concept' and derived
>>words, we need to find a set of valid
>>substitutes, lest we find ourselves lost for
>>words - representation of the abstraction
>>perhaps is an equivalent expression, or should
>>we avoid that too, and the entire class of terms
>>that refer to generic abstract representations?
>>
>>I think 'notion' is a word I use as a synonym of
>>concept, (rather than umbrella?), but somehow it
>>is not so 'expressive' , and maybe would end up
>>with the same issue later on?
>>
>>Or maybe, just maybe, the word concept is a
>>little abused, a cover word for when we dont
>>know what to say really. The rather than avoid
>>it, we should learn how to use it only when
>>appropriate?
>>
>>boh - what a problem eh?
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>PDM
>>(puzzled)
>>((ignore me))
>
>
> Sorry, I won't ignore you, you raise such nice issues.
>
>
>
>>On 6/14/07, Cassidy, Patrick J.
>><<mailto:pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Paola,
>> I feel your pain.
>> I believe that "concept" in most communities
>>is used as a vague non-technical term that
>>means "any mental structure used in thinking",
>>and is useful for talking about things (mental
>>structures in the brain - the result of
>>neurological processes) whose exact structure we
>>do not presently have the technology to
>>discover, and in that sense is perfectly useful
>>in general and technical discussions as well,
>>provided that we do not try to actually fix on
>>some rigid definition as the only possible
>>meaning. Here are dictionary definitions from
>>The Random House Webster:
>>
>>1.
>>
>>a general notion or idea; conception.
>>
>>2.
>>
>>an idea of something formed by mentally
>>combining all its characteristics or
>>particulars; a construct.
>>
>>3.
>>
>>a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.
>>
>> The issue that Barry Smith is particularly
>>concerned about is whether the
>>mathematical/logical structures we put into our
>>ontologies should represent some mental
>>structure in our brain, or represent the
>>physical objects and processes in the real
>>world. Whether there is a "real world" of
>>abstract things like numbers that can be
>>represented independently of how we think about
>>them is another issue.. The way I have viewed
>>the issue is that it is indeed my intention,
>>like Barry's, to represent things in the real
>>world as the "referent" for the structures in my
>>ontologies. But I am acutely aware that in fact
>>I am representing my own understanding of those
>>things in the real world - and so is everyone
>>else, which is why our ontologies differ and we
>>have these wonderful stimulating discussions.
>>
>> If I understand him, Barry's point of
>>avoiding "concept" is to focus on the things
>>that are significant in the physical systems we
>>deal with, and avoid excessive, experimentally
>>unverifiable, and potentially
>>confusing abstractions. That's reasonable. I
>>myself personally don't think it is necessary to
>>avoid using the term "concept" in technical
>>matters, provided that we are clear that it is a
>>vague general term not intended to have any
>>precise technical meaning.
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>>
>>From:
>><mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>[mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
>>On Behalf Of
>><mailto:paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
>>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:17 AM
>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>Subject: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question?
>>
>>I am writing up against a deadline and suddenly
>>I realise that one of the foundational artifacts
>>in ontology is being questioned on this list
>>'the concept'. and 'the conceptualization'
>>
>> If I take out the word concept from all the
>>papers that I am referencing, ontology as a
>>science end ups like a colander, full of holes
>>If I take out concepts from my mind, my brain
>>stops thinking. I cannot see anything anymore. I
>>go blind Everything in my mind is a concept, as
>>far as I can tell.
>>
>>Yet I now feel that, given these discussion,
>>maybe I should justify the word 'concept each
>>time I use it (by concept I mean....)
>>somehow this is slowing me down This question has started to bug me
>>
>>I personally think that 'concept' is a rather
>>elementary and necessary expression of thinking
>>and a artifact of knowledge representation
>>
>>Have you, guys who don't think with concepts,
>>written a paper, are you serious, or just
>>joking? What are you going to substitute concept
>>with?
>>
>>
>>Thanks a lot
>>
>>
>>
>>Paola Di Maio *****(slightly disturbed)
>>
>>*********************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Message Archives:
>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>
>>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>Subscribe/Config:
>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>>Unsubscribe:
>>mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>To Post:
>>mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>Paola Di Maio *****
>>School of Information Technology
>>Mae Fah Luang University
>>Chiang Rai - Thailand
>>*********************************************
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>
>
> (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|