[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] OntoPaedia [was Physical Grounding [was Foundation O

To: <standard-upper-ontology@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: user2 <jason3@xxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:34:03 +0300
Message-id: <001001c90b7e$ff859860$010aa8c0@homepc>
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 -----
From: user2
To: Azamat
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Physical Grounding [was Foundation Ontology]


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..." 

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.

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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>