|
Alexander,
You must know such common things that most
dictionary definitions are ending in loops.
Re. the universe of discourse, the point is
not giving a comprehesive definition, but to emphasize that this hybrid
construct has two faces: "universe" and "discourse." This semantic duality is
the source of confusion even for experienced minds. But if you view the
issue as simple, make your contribution, try and extend the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_of_discourse.
Good luck.
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:19
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there
something I missed?
Azamat,
why not just type in Google search window:
define:discourse
define:universe of discourse
and get a plenty of interesting descriptions.
even without loop like this one:
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.
Alex
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.
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
|