Type (mKR "isu","iss") and part (mKR "haspart") relations
are only the beginning of a foundation ontology. (02)
You also need other relations (mKR "rel","relation"),
actions (mKR "do","method"),
definitions (mKR "is-with"),
context (mKR "at")
and more. (03)
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking forward at the past (05)
> Pat and Don,
> I partially agree with that point:
> PC> When you try to "interoperate" with a plumber or any other
>> person, your chances of achieving successful communication
>> depend on both of you already sharing a very large basic
> But I'd replace "very large" with "an amount varying from
> almost nothing to a great deal". It would be more accurate to
> say "common assumptions about the subject domain", independent
> of whether those assumptions are stated in a common language
> or even a language of any kind.
> I also agree with the following point, but first we have to
> decide how to organize that foundational ontology.
> DC> The reason you can effectively communicate with the cast of
>> characters in your examples requires much, much more than the
>> lowest level task common definitions. Many of these things are
>> of the sort that would be in a foundational ontology.
> As I have said in various notes, my view of a foundational
> ontology consists of a large, but very sparsely axiomatized
> type hierarchy, which would primarily be based on two relations:
> type/subtype and part/whole. In fact, it might be better to
> think of it as little more than a well-designed taxonomy and
> meronomy for a large vocabulary.
> In addition to those very sparsely axiomatized terms, there must
> be specialized chunks or modules or microtheories of knowledge
> with much more detailed axioms. I think Don's list is fine,
> and it could be enlarged with a long list of esoteric areas that
> may be critical for certain applications. But in many cases,
> one party to the dialog may have vastly more knowledge about
> these esoteric topics than the other.
> DC> * Time
> * Location
> * Interdependencies in general and specifically for each domain
> * A host of concepts:
> -Residential building codes
> -competitive pricing
> -locale specific cuisine
> -context to parse the communications correctly
> But note that these come into play in *different* tasks with different
> people, who may have different kinds and amounts of knowledge about
> the shared task.
> A contractor usually has far more knowledge of building codes than
> the house owner and a dentist has vastly more knowledge about dental
> anatomy. In many cases, interoperability is successful *because*
> the amount and kind of knowledge is *asymmetric*.
> To return to my original point: When talking with the plumber,
> dentist, waiter, clerk, surgeon, contractor, etc., the amount of
> shared vocabulary that the two parties require is generally a
> tiny fraction of what either one of them knows.
> Furthermore, the core intersection of vocabulary required for all
> six pairs of interactions is very tiny. The core intersection
> is seldom, if ever, verbalized. It is the common knowledge that
> dictionaries do not state explicitly.
> These are the reasons why I recommend a very sparsely axiomatized
> taxonomy and meronomy of terms. (Note that the definitions in
> Longman's dictionary leave out an enormous amount of information
> that would be required to use those terms effectively.) The basis
> for detailed reasoning is in the very specialized microtheories,
> of which one party may often know a great deal more than the other.
> Essential point: Many, if not most, kinds of interoperability
> are asymmetric: one party may have vastly more knowledge about
> the domain than the other. Even when the amounts of relevant
> knowledge are similar, the two parties may have very different
> kinds (e.g. manager and employee, contractor and subcontractor,
> CEO and accountant), and they communicate primarily on their
> common intersection.
> 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 (07)