|
'domain of discourse' or 'universe of discourse'
has two widely practiced technical senses:
1. "universe or domain", the object of study, also
subject matter, content, matter, or reference class, the set of all entities to
be assumed or described, as ontological universe, mathematical universes,
physical universes, social domains or technological domains.
2. "discourse", the set of all ground terms
and constructions in some discourse, as linguistic discourse or
logical discourse, the range of quantification in mathematical logic, as
Herbrand universe or the SW ontologies.
Now, the real world is the universe (of
discourse) and subject matter of all factual sciences; the world of symbols,
signs, terms and expressions is the (universe) of discourse and subject
matter of mostly formal sciences.
There are two complementary knowledge areas with
potentially unlimited universes of discourse, in the both senses, ontology and
logic. The object of logic is the whole of discourse; namely the formal elements
and patterns and forms of discourse about everything and anything, without
reference to the real world. The universe of discourse of
ontology is reality itself with its features and aspects, which
identifies the fundamental elements and patterns and forms of all things
(Universe), as the being of everything and anything.
Azamat Abdoullaev
PS: I think this one-actor insipid
performance, looking as a session of 'likbez' (liquidatiya bezgramotnosti),
should be brought to an end somehow.
----- Original Mething message -----
.
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:05
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there
something I missed?
2.(a)
He wants us all to use a W3C-designed ontology language.
Diversity,schmiversity. The W3C universes of discourse shall
be THE universes ofdiscourse on the Web. And if you're not
interested in any of theW3C-blessed levels of support for logical
inferencing, you have littleto contribute to the "Semantic Web", no matter
how much you know, orwhat you have to offer.
I am not sure if I would express it quite in these terms, but just
to support my (partial I should have said) agreement with the above:
as I
(try to) learn how to use the current SW ontology editors, I have come to
realise that none of these allows me to create an ontology in any
other formalism than OWL,(or RDF), which constitute the boundary of W3C
domain of discourse
No, really. Using OWL or RDF does not restrict your domain of
discourse at all. That is, it does not restrict what you can write assertions
about: it does not restrict your topics or subject-matter. Not even in
the slightest degree. What it does restrict you to, of course, is using OWL or
RDF syntax to say what you want to say, and that indeed is a restriction of a
sort; but not a restriction to a domain of discourse.
As to that second point: of course, any set of standards amounts to a
restriction to use those standards. I fail to see how things could be
otherwise, pretty much from the definition of "standard". (Wouldn't you have
expected that a "SW ontology editor" would want you to edit ontologies written
in a SW standard language? Why else would it be called a SW editor? There are
plenty of other ontology editors for ontologies written in other formalisms.)
But the W3C is actively trying to extend this set of standard ontology
languages, and actively trying to establish links and connections between it
and other notations in use on the Web (cf, the active projects to link RDF to
HTML, including GRDDL and RDF-A). But it all takes time. If anyone has any
ideas on how to improve this situation, everyone will be delighted to hear
them.
Pat
PS.. It occurs to me that people unfamiliar with logic or philosophy may
not realize that "domain of discourse" is a technical term. It means the set
of things that a logic or notation is capable of talking about or referring
to; or more exactly, the set of such things that it is understood to be
talking about in a given interpretation. For example, the domain of discourse
of the OWL Wine ontology comprises wines, types of wine, wine-growing regions
and few types of taste and color, when that ontology is interpreted in the
intended way.
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC
(850)434 8903
or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416
office
Pensacola
(850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502
(850)291 0667 mobile
_________________________________________________________________
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
|