|
Monday, March 10, 2008 9:19 PM, John A. Yanosy
wrote:
> Is not an ontology such a system for
classifying real world objects and enabling all kinds of inferences to be
possible as a result of being a member of that classification in the ontology
model?
Yes, it is. Ontology is all about the natures of
real things and relationships, about the natural hierarchy of distinct kinds and
relationships constraining (or guiding) the world behaivour. Ontological
representations and models are accordingly about basic meanings and
classifications, about most fundamental categories, definitions, axioms and
rules. It is also about unity and integrity and
unification than analysis and diversity, oneness and sameness than
many, class than individual, universal than particular.
> I am a(n) human being, live being, father, husband,
employee, engineer, EE, U.S. citizen, male, voracious reader, tennis
player, political activist, moderately healthy person, investor, Chair of NCOIC
working group, happily married person, qualified driver, registered voter,
taxpaying citizen, lover of literature, chief architect, systems engineer,
amateur gardener, transplanted New Englander in Texas, tea drinker, wine
lover, honest person...
You might also be adventurer, capitalist, creator,
experimenter, expert, individualist, lover, reader, leader, money dealer,
subject, religious person, worker, Slav or Jew or Russian, White or Black,
occultist, visionary or warrior, or witness.
This all are accidents. Of the five universal predicates,
class or genus, difference or differentia, definition, property, and accident,
ontology is least about individual properties of things. For its area
are the generic natures common to all kinds (animals) or the specific
natures common to all individuals (humans). Re. ''person'', ontology specifies
its nature, essence or basic meaning or definition like as ''a human being
endowed with rationality, knowledge or intelligence''. It classifies human
beings as natural kinds and cultural beings. It determines all the basic classes
of persons, all the major traits and characters (differences or differentia)
common to the members of this class of entities. Accidental natures or
individual properties of human beings are out of interest for genuine ontology
modeling.
> My
understanding is that a good ontology would represent some form of accepted
social knowledge about a classification concept in some context, thus enabling
personal perceptions to be placed in a larger social ontology model of semantic
interpretation. I imagine each person would then determine whether the larger
social ontology models is consistent with their own ontology model, and if not
then inform others about this disagreement.
This approach is known as the constructivist position, where
the ''conceptions'' of intelligent agents are viewed as a critical thing in
the world representation. Real things are regarded here as mental
constructions and vice versa. Another critical concept is ''inter-subjective
reality', the collectively agreed and negotiated representations of
things. There has been a project striving for a global information systems
conceptual framework in such a way, named FRISCO, http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/index.php?id=445.
As its result, the developers declared 100 core concepts, added with the number
of assumptions and definitions. Although, they used fundamental ontology and
semiotics, the wrong assumptions about the world and its relationship with
knowing agents put a conceptual obstacle to its further
progress.
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems
LTD
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 9:19
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic
definition
Thanks so much for the very
informative and comprehensive ideas. They truly inform one about the scope of
ontologies, the concept of information sharing for further classification and
inferences in multiple ontologies, determining when adding instances to an
ontology for classification and inference purposes is consistent with a
contributor's perception, and informing others about ontologies not
consistent with real world perceptions by a community. Here are some thoughts
I have been tring to udnerstand about the use of ontologies.
Here are some example classifications of
myself, which I believe would result in further ontologies to enable
inferences to be made in each domain of discourse.
I am a(n) human being, live being, father, husband,
employee, engineer, EE, U.S. citizen, male, voracious reader, tennis
player, political activist, moderately healthy person, investor, Chair of
NCOIC working group, happily married person, qualified driver, registered
voter, taxpaying citizen, lover of literature, chief architect, systems
engineer, amateur gardener, transplanted New Englander in Texas, tea
drinker, wine lover, honest person...
We as humans don't seem to have a significant problem with accepting
and using these terms to classify someone and inferring all kinds of other
knowledge about that classification for that person so classified, once a
dialog is established to place the classification in some context and the
appropriateness of the classification, e.g., some ontology for instance.
Is not an ontology such a system
for classifying real world objects and enabling all kinds of inferences to be
possible as a result of being a member of that classification in the ontology
model?
Different classifications
in different ontology models will have different inferences appropriate for
that model. Most of the above classifications probably have different ontology
models depending on other related classification concepts. I hope that the
linking of common points such as Person across these models may enable
inferences to be made about the same referent in different ontologies, once
the appropriate instances associated with other concepts in these ontologies
are populated for the original instance.
My understanding is that a good ontology would represent some form of
accepted social knowledge about a classification concept in some context, thus
enabling personal perceptions to be placed in a larger social ontology model
of semantic interpretation. I imagine each person would then determine whether
the larger social ontology models is consistent with their own ontology model,
and if not then inform others about this disagreement.
I can imagine all kinds of situations where an ontology
is not inconsistent with a person's perspective, but the ontology is not
sufficient for the communicative purposes of the person sharing information.
This leads to the interesting
problem of how to share information about a perceived real world object in a
manner with minimal classifications, so that it can be further classified
according to the domain of interest by other classifiers, of course with the
assistance of the original perception.
Best Regards,
John A. Yanosy Jr.
Cell:
214-336-9875
PH: 972-705-1807
Email: JAYANOSY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Azamat"
<abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2008 01:34 PM
|
Please respond
to
"[ontolog-forum] "
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| "Golda Velez"
<gv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
| 'SW-forum'
<semantic-web@xxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum] "
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
Subject
| [ontolog-forum]
semantic definition |
|
On Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:55 PM, Golda Velez wrote:
> I
think assuming that definitions are factual rather than personal
>
representations of reality is one of > the reasons that there has been
> some problems getting domain ontologies created. I
>
remember reading a quote from a US Senator, that whoever is in charge of
> the
> definitions wins the argument. Rules and
definitions beg for discussion
> in
> any field that is under 100
years old...
I was surprised that the issues of definition, its nature,
kinds, meaning,
demonstration, and formalization, has not received a
separate thread and
careful discussion both on the semantic web and
ontology forums. Since it is
hardly to find another notion so decisive for
ontology and semantic web
...and so muddled and vague. For currently the
definitions [as giving the
meanings of expressions, symbols, constructs,
or things] might be
constructed by reference to:
classification or
dichotomy (classificatory definition);
properties
(genus&differentia) (essential definition);
parts, accidental
properties (ostensive definition)
context (contextual
definition);
cause, genesis, origin (genetic or genealogical
definition);
end or purpose (stipulative definition);
interest
(pragmatic definition);
common use (dictionary
definition);
induction (recursive definition);
intension
(connotation) (intensional or connotative definition);
extension
(denotation) (extensional definition).
Such inconsistency of
definition is a cause of diverse views of meaning
itself, which is defined
as in:
idea, thought or intention;
operation, measurement, and
computation;
usage, utility;
truth condition;
sense,
intension, connotation, content;
reference, extension,
denotation;
sense and reference together.
A definition may be
qualified as consistent and contradictory, true or
false, arbitrary or
real, proved or unproved, accidental or essential,
formal or material,
nominal or real.
It is stated that many axioms of the sciences,
formal and theoretical, are
nothing but definitions in disguise. That
definition is formal and precise
unlike description, explanation,
interpretation. And that formally it is a
kind of an equivalence relation
where the left side (the definiendum, that
which is to be defined) is a
function of the right side (definiens, that
which defines, determines,
specifies).
The most prospective method of defining seems to be
a semantic real
definition, where the definition involves the primary
meaning (key
denotation cum major connotation) of a word, a phrase, a
symbol, a concept
or an entity, so that it states the nature of the object
defined and is
convertible with its subject. The semantic definition is a
relatively stable
construct. Although, it is liable to the controlled
redefinition as far as
the knowledge of the world progresses, but this
updating should not be
something unpredicted or unforeseen, a radically
new definition.
There is an example of motherhood, the family
relationship between an
offspring and the female parent. Presently, a
child may have mothers as
diverse as natural mother, biological mother,
adopting mother, step mother,
surrogate mother, cloning mother, etc. When
we use a standard nominal
definition of mother as {''a woman giving birth
to a child''), we are
missing all possible kinds of motherhood. When we
use a real definition (''a
woman parenting (producing, begetting or
raising) a child''), verified by
experimentation, we can cover all the key
senses of motherhood.
Re ''the personal representations of
reality'', being a sort of nominal
definitions and usually having nothing
to do with the nature of things, such
definitions are not harmful as far
as they used for specific personal
purposes, but most harmful then
presented as the scientific and objective
definitions. One may define
erotica as '' a creative activity to stimulate a
reproductive activity'',
capitalism as '' an economic system based on
exploitation and
profiteering'', political party as ''an organization to
gain power by
revolution'', business as ''a commercial activity to
profiteer'', etc.,
thus creating an unreal world.
The same reasoning applies to defining
ontology, ontological classes,
computing ontology, ontology engineering,
ontology languages and tools,
semantics, semantic concepts, semantic
systems, semantic web, semantic web
technologies, etc.
Here I met a
conference definition of semantic interoperability as ??the
common
automatic interpretation of the meaning of the exchanged information,
i.e.
the ability to automatically process the information in a
machine-understandable manner.?? Now I wonder what sort of definition it
might be: nominal, extensional, pragmatic,
ostensive.
azamat
abdoullaev
_________________________________________________________________
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
|