|
Matthew,
important point you make - . reality is one,
but I think we all agree that R its so vast and so detailed, and so complex, that humans cannot grasp reality in its entirety - especially given to hardware limitations (only two eyes, two ears, two partitions in a temporal brain, etc)
Plus there are individual beliefs that cause people to 'filter' what they see/learn/know based on some assumptions
(what they believe possible, or believe right, for example). I think thats more like software. (after Johns talk i became so aware that I use analogy a lot)
So, while I agree that there is only one (R) I am also pretty sure that as you say, the average human in our space-time dimension has a limited view of that reality (r) Added to the personal, social, cultural, educational differences and DNA makeup etc, we have lots of diferent views. We also have unlimited ways of representig, expressing and communicating such views.
So, while all the 'r's are good, can be valid, and have some purpose (build bridge), we should admit that the advancement of knowledge can happen only when we learn how to set aside our preconceivd beliefs, which together with other factors constitute the boundaries of our view, and look for what's behind the scope of our limited view
In asbtract terms, a universal ontology can be many things, not better explained nor easily grasped, not last a way of exploring reality and the world, a cognitive model of the known universe as such. Last I heard of it, Einstein had this vision, and somehow I hope more current scientists lik stephen hawkings are eagerly awaiting for developments
One of the proposed aspects of a 'unviersal scheme' , that I believe should be easily managed by this community (c'mon lets stretch)
is a decent (by decent I mean adequate to human knowledge) semantic schema to represent human language on the web - just one of the formalisms that can be derived from such a top level view/representation (
realistic of not, that depends on one's bredth of view of reality, would you agree?)
From what I have seen so far, this is what Azamat is currently pursuing, and I look forward to be reading and understanding more of his work, and most particulary to test its validity in a run time environment, and to see the benefits of the application of theoretical level work
I dont think we should dismiss upfront something that we dong even know what it is, kind of 'something cannot exist' argument before the subject has been defined even.
Cheers
Paola DM
On 7/22/07, matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Azamat and others,
I agree with Azamat - there is a single universal ontology.
(Just because I believe there is a single reality).
Unfortunately, I can see there are a lot of other ontologies
too, and it seems hard to determine which is the right one
(and I doubt it is available to be discerned yet).
Regards
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 621148
Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Azamat
> Sent: 21 July 2007 23:02
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerningWeb
> Architecture and LinkedData
>
>
> Patrick Durusau wrote: I am sure Azamat will formulate his
> own response but
> I can answer for
> myself since I share the opinion that there is no "universal
> ontology."
>
> Dear Patrick,
> Let me just ensure you that there is a ''universal
> ontology'', '' global
> ontology'', '' master ontology'', or '' standard ontology'', as a
> comprehensive consistent world model.
> Otherwise, no Semantic Web, no artificial intelligent systems, etc.
> Azamat
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
>
> Patrick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Durusau" <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning Web
> Architecture and LinkedData
>
>
> > Randall,
> >
> > Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >> On Saturday 21 July 2007 12:59, Azamat wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rarely have i seen such obtusness. Pat has said many interesting
> >>> things, but this statement reflects the whole point of
> the Semantic
> >>> Web. No Real Meanings, no Semantic Web, or no Universal
> Ontology,
> >>> no Intelligent Web. That's it.
> >>>
> >>> Azamat
> >>>
> >>
> >> If this is the statement it seems to be, namely one of complete
> >> pessimism about the entire Semantic Web endeavor (and
> apparently, any
> >> form of computational intelligence), what motivates your
> participation
> >> in this forum?
> >>
> >>
> > I am sure Azamat will formulate his own response but I can
> answer for
> > myself since I share the opinion that there is no
> "universal ontology."
> >
> > First, I don't think belief in a universal ontology has
> anything to do
> > with "computational intelligence." It certainly is irrelevant to any
> > claims of human intelligence, the possessors of which have been
> > demonstrated to believe in any number of ontologies, perhaps even
> > contradictory ones.
> >
> > Second, and more pragmatically, if a client finds that use
> of "Semantic
> > Web" technologies provides a useful result for whatever purpose they
> > have in mind, what is their (or my) belief in a universal
> ontology have
> > to do with it? Or the connection of such a universal
> ontology to "real"
> > meaning? Interesting questions for a coffee shop discussion but has
> > little to do with the results that motivate clients to pay
> for services.
> >
> > I say all that because the topic maps community has spent
> years (not as
> > many as the ontology community) hand wringing over the
> "big" issues when
> > the real questions that needed answering were what result
> does the use
> > of topic maps enable that isn't otherwise available and how
> does than
> > answer the needs of user X?
> >
> > Granted, I take that position because I think meaning is in
> the eyes of
> > the user (cf. reader response criticism and Stanley Fish) but I also
> > suspect that pragmatically speaking, the question that any semantic
> > technology has to answer is of what use is it to the user
> in question?
> > It's formal correctness and answering the "big" questions
> won't save a
> > technology that has no real payoff for users.
> >
> > I participate because I wanted to learn the terminology and thinking
> > that underlies current ontology efforts. Whether those efforts are
> > "true" in some absolute sense of the world isn't a question
> that I worry
> > about. How those efforts may or may not have benefits for users,
> > however, is a question that concerns me.
> >
> > Hope you are having a great day!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >> Randall Schulz
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Durusau
> > patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> > Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> > Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
> > Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|