John and Pat, (01)
To create the World Description Framework for knowledge machines and
semantic systems is hardly possible without understanding the real nature of
ontology. Namely, that it studies the being of everything which exists and
changes; that it is the general account of reality, the world, the universe,
or all existence; that it is pure, abstract, or theoretical science; that it
increases the world knowledge, unfolds new basic truths, develops new
sciences and technology, like semantic web, and affords consistent world
representation; that it is a productive science rather than critical, as
formal logic; that it is universal language for all sciences; that it yields
the most comprehensive K&R language for machines; and that it is not just a
vocabulary, a catalog of common terms, taxonomy, terminology,
conceptualization, conceptual analysis, model, and what not. (02)
I am curious, while pushing the common logic, do you mean one logic to all
fields of knowledge, fitting ontology, maths, physics, ethics, politics,
history, etc., or something else. Thanks in advance. (03)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep (05)
> You are taking the a priori view that there exists an ideal
> abstract ontology that is somehow the foundation for everything.
> That view is close to Plato's view of the forms, but it is very
> different from Aristotle's empirical view.
> > Ontology is the core of philosophy (Logics, Epistemology,
> > Semantics, etc.) and the foundation of all sciences, physical,
> > psychological, social, and engineering, thus it sets the most
> > basic assumptions for the world knowledge, to be truly
> > represented by the advanced knowledge and semantic technology.
> Since there is no generally agreed ontology, I can accept that
> statement as equivalent to "the empty set is a subset of everything".
> > Other views only deprecate its high status of Science of
> > sciences.
> I am willing to say that a good ontology would be valuable,
> but I certainly deprecate 99% of what people say about ontology
> as being pure baloney.
>''Ontology is something that one could study in science (discovering what
>exists) or in philosophy
>characterizing what exists) or in both.''
>Ontology is the core of philosophy (Logics, Epistemology, Semantics, etc.)
>and the foundation of all sciences, physical, psychological, social, and
>engineering, thus it sets the most basic assumptions for the world
>knowledge, to be truly represented by the advanced knowledge and semantic
>technology. Other views only depricate its high status of Science of
Carème, the great French chef, once famously
said: "Of all the arts, the highest is
Architecture; and of the branches of
Architecture, the greatest is Confectionery."
> 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/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)