Thanks Pat, seems some, maybe most, languages and logics are fuzzy on
the point. A quick survey shows the description logic literature uses
concept a lot and common logic does in the section on conceptual graphs.
KIF says the specification is a conceptualization, but uses objects. And
the OWL spec provides some insight in its definition of Class by saying
"A class has an intensional meaning (the underlying concept) which is
related but not equal to its class extension." But with owl:Thing as the
base of the language, its constructs seem to be firmly grounded in the
world. (01)
I wonder how this issue was debated on the DAML/OWL teams regarding
Thing in OWL and Concept in DL. I'm in a workshop with Tim BL Monday and
I'll try to get some background. (02)
Anyway, the reason I started the overly ambitious "model that Peirce
book" project was to think this all through. I'm just spinning it up,
but I think there's something important here. At least a way for me to
be precise whether I'm representing cognition, or things in the world. (03)
I'd be happy to keep folks posted over the next few months, years,
decades ... as I work it through and I welcome others to participate,
collaborate, etc. (04)
--
Best wishes, (05)
Rick (06)
email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
blog: http://spout.rickmurphy.org
cell: 703-201-9129 (07)
Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Pat & All:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> OK, point taken. Yes, if we were to set out to do an ontology of mental
> life or agency or consciousness or whatever, like your Peirce-in-OWL
> (wow!) then 'concept' might well be a category or classification in that
> ontology (though I would like to read the explanation of it very
> carefully :-). But what we were debating, I think, is whether we need to
> talk about concepts when talking about the whole business of ontology
> engineering itself, regardless of the topic; whether the very idea of a
> concept (concept of a concept??) must be part of our ontology
> metatheory, a term of art in our very discipline. That's the view I was
> arguing (well, not exactly arguing) against, in any case.
>
> Pat
>
>> Consider for example specifying ...
>>
>> http://www.peirce.org/writings/p32.html
>>
>> Our model, or specification would include: conception, impression,
>> consciousness, unity, substance, being, representamen, interpretant,
>> ground, quale, sign ...
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> (assertion (=> (forall (?x ?y) (and (conception ?x)(impression ?y)))
>> (reduceToUnity ?x ?y)) :name 'sense2unity)
>>
>> Or in OWL I could say something like ...
>>
>> http://www.rickmurphy.org/categories.owl
>>
>> FYI - This actually works in Pellet and Swoop ...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
>> blog: http://spout.rickmurphy.org
>> cell: 703-201-9129
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|