|
James,
I fully support your search for a solid grounding
or foundation for ontology. It is most significant to associate the
foundation ontology with reality, without ambiguity. Another good thing is to
know that such a reality is not bounded by the material world, the
physical universe of sensible entities. It would be of great use to
distinguish several forms and levels of reality or existence, as
in:
The Ontological World, the world of Entity, Space
and Time;
The Natural World, the universe of material
entities, processes, and relationships;
The Mental World, the psychological realm of mental
entities, processes, and relationships;
The Social Reality, the world of cultural objects,
processes and social interrelations;
The Technological World, the realm of engineering
systems and processes, encompassing the computing reality of information
knowledge entities and relationships.
We debate the hot topics and
issues of Foundation Ontology quite a long: what it is, how it is possible,
what it must cover, how it must be built, who will construct it, who is to
fund it, how to store it, etc. Today I am glad to inform something
concrete. Before soon everybody will have a chance to download such
a ontology reference experimentation, named as ONTOPAEDIA: Global Knowledge Base, to be released by EIS Encyclopedic
Intelligent Systems Ltd next month.
it's basic world hierarchy
of entities grounds all key subject categories of Britannica, its Propaedia's
knowledge organization system, the categorical systems of Wikipedia , as
well as the reclassified WordNet.
In ONTOPAEDIA, it is practically demonstrated
the integrating value of the Unified Foundation Ontology in building
domain ontologies and knowledge bases, on all key topics presented in the
Encyclopedia Britannica (Knowledge In Depth). As the more detailed use cases go
the Medical Ontology, the Business Ontology, and the World Countries
Ontology.
It's time to realize our big promises and
hopes.
azamat abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:57
AM
Subject: Re: Physical Grounding [was
Foundation Ontology]
Azamat,
I think we agree.
Foundation Ontology, as a branch of philosophy based on logical
reasoning rather than on empirical methods, covers some of the same ground
that the science of physics does.
I do not know that Foundation Ontology subsumes Physics, and I do not
know that Physics subsumes Foundation Ontology.
The point of my prior posting was to anchor Foundation Ontology in the
perceivable world, that is, in the reality that we become aware of directly
through our senses. Physics can use hypothetical constructs and
intervening variables in its calculations. Foundation Ontology is not in
that business.
In terms of the prior discussion centering on symbol "grounding" and
"foundation," I hope the following quote is helpful:
"Synonyms: base, basis, foundation, ground...
These nouns all pertain to what underlies and supports... Base is applied
chiefly to material objects... Basis is used in a nonphysical sense...
Foundation often stresses firmness of support for something of relative
magnitude... Ground is used figuratively in the plural to mean a justifiable
reason..."
James
On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Azamat wrote:
Foundation Ontology, as the science of entities
(substances, states, changes) and their interrelationships, covers
physics, the science of material substances (matter), states (forms,
shapes, sizes) and changes (energy) and their interrelationships
(interactions).
On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:41 PM, James wrote:
Of the three methods of grounding symbols
mentioned below,
the one most fitting for a Foundation Ontology (FO) is the first.
The first method implies that the physical universe is
perceivable
by humans as functioning organisms. The first method does
not
assume transcendent reality, whatever that might be.
Is there firmer grounding for a Foundation Ontology than
in
the material universe?
What forms of physical substance need be considered
in a FO other than solid objects, liquids, or gases?
What attributes of objects need be considered other
than
physical attributes such as shape and size?
What attributes of liquids need be considered other
than
physical attributes such as volume?
What attributes of gases need be considered other than
physical attributes such as density?
What changes in material substance need to be
considered
other than changes in internal constitution or changes in
location?
What other than
(a) physical substance and
(b) change in physical substance
needs to be considered in a
FO?
On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:08 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
That is an accurate description, since it
may be desirable that the
terms of an ontology would be grounded in
actual entities in the real
world, but there is no way to ensure that
any particular version is
truly grounded.
On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:38 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
there are three methods of grounding the
symbols we use:
1. Direct experience with the
referents by perception and action.
2. Indirect connections to
experience by associations created by
patterns of words that
are more directly grounded.
3. Communication by means of natural
languages with other people
whose grounding for the
symbols is more direct than ours.
|