NO, FOL is a syntax, and a basic vocabulary is critical. I think that
optimally the FO needs to include the semantic primitives, otherwise people
will create relations that have the same terms and different meanings, and
different terms for the same meaning, and there will be no automatic way to
recognize the similarities or differences. But if all domain terms (and
domain ontology elements) are logically specified using the same set of
semantic primitives, the mach9ine will be able to automatically properly
interpret the domain representations, because it knows how to properly
interpret the primitives. (01)
This is not a trivial issue that can be dismissed with offhand comments. It
is at the core of what it means to represent meanings, and it should be
seriously investigated by a project involves most of the most knowledgeable
ontologists, and some representation of potential users - especially natural
language researchers. (02)
I ask the question again: is it not at least interesting, if not (as I
believe) of central importance to the practice of ontological engineering to
learn whether a necessary and sufficient inventory of semantic primitives
can in fact be identified? (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:14 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> standards
>
> On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> > Ed,
> > The point you miss is that the foundation ontology does not need
> > to take
> > a stance on **any** theories that are contradictory, it merely needs
> > to
> > provide the conceptual vocabulary with which to **describe**
> > theories people
> > build. Alternative theories can be represented in extensions to the
> > foundation ontology ...
>
> I think Ed's point is that there is no realistic hope of such a thing
> as THE foundational ontology (unless you take it to be first-order
> logic, i.e., the theory whose only theorems are logical truths and
> whose only primitives are boolean operators and quantifiers).
>
> > I view the foundation ontology as the set of concept representations
> > that do *not* depend on models for which there are disputed
> > alternatives...
>
> Yep, that sounds like first-order logic all right! ;-)
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|