ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] An Ultra High Level Ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:48:18 -0600
Message-id: <055D410C-1483-4211-849A-969DA7821EAB@xxxxxxx>

On Feb 10, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:    (01)

> Since John Sowa and Pat Hayes (and possibly Ian Bailey) seem to agree
> on the following ultra high level ontology    (02)

Im not sure where you got that impression. I don't even count this as  
an ontology, myself.    (03)

Pat    (04)

> , perhaps we should proclaim
> it an "Initial Ontic Standard" that can be built upon:    (05)

God forbid.    (06)

Pat H.    (07)

>
>
> -Thing
>   -Individual
>   -Type
>     -Powertype
>     -TupleTyple
>     -IndividualType
>     -Name
>     -NameType
>   -tuple (thing, thing, thing, ...etc.)
>     -couple (thing, thing)
>       -superSubtype (type, type)
>       -typeInstance (type, thing)
>         -powertypeInstance (powertype, type)
>         -nameTypeInstance (nametype, name)
>       -namedBy (thing, name)
>     -triple (thing, thing, thing)
>     -quadruple (thing, thing, thing, thing)
>     -quintuple (thing, thing, thing, thing, thing)
>
>> [JS]  Common Logic, for example, is called a logic rather than an
>> ontology.  But it is possible to define a dialect of CL that uses
>> the labels above to name the syntactic features of CL.
>>
>> - A thing is anything named by a CL name.
>>
>> - A type is a monadic relation that is used as a
>>   restriction on a quantified name.
>>
>> But as Pat said, the boundary isn't clear.  You could say that your
>> system does make the following "ontological commitment":
>>
>> - If there exists a thing x and a thing y, then there exists
>>   a couple consisting of x and y.
>>
>> In CLIF, that statement could be written as the following axiom:
>>
>>   (forall (x y) (exists (z) (= z (couple x y))))
>>
>> However, this level of commitment is far below what you would get
>> from adopting any first-order logic plus some obvious mathematical
>> theories that can be axiomatized in FOL:  sets, functions, relations,
>> integers, real numbers, etc.
>>
>> But that is still very far from giving us an ontology that can
>> represent all the stuff of science, engineering, business, etc.
>
> Next, if this is as successful as Dublin core was, we can then start
> to define "very high level ontologies" for (science, engineering,
> business, etc).  Each of these  that can similarly be built upon for  
> each
> discipline we care to spend the effort on.
>
> Just starting with a very small, Dublin-core like, ontology such as
> the above would be an improvement on our present state of discussion.
> And who knows, there might be products introduced to support this
> simple ultra high level ontology.  Ontologies might be classified as:
>       - ultra high  (like this one)
>       - very high
>       - high
>       - middle
>       - low             (to the design level)
>       - very low
>       - ultra low   (to the coding level)
>
> -Rich
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.  
> Sowa
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:27 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology
>
> Ian and Pat,
>
> I agree with Pat:
>
> PH> I wouldn't describe this list as an ontology at all, more
>> like the underlying formalism of an ontology. I would add
>> immediately that this isnt a clear boundary, but your list
>> here doesn't seem to be about the world being described so
>> much as about the apparatus you propose to use to describe it.
>
> The following classification is closer to a description of the
> permissible syntactic categories:
>
> -Thing
>   -Individual
>   -Type
>     -Powertype
>     -TupleTyple
>     -IndividualType
>     -Name
>     -NameType
>   -tuple (thing, thing, thing, ...etc.)
>     -couple (thing, thing)
>       -superSubtype (type, type)
>       -typeInstance (type, thing)
>         -powertypeInstance (powertype, type)
>         -nameTypeInstance (nametype, name)
>       -namedBy (thing, name)
>     -triple (thing, thing, thing)
>     -quadruple (thing, thing, thing, thing)
>     -quintuple (thing, thing, thing, thing, thing)
>
> Common Logic, for example, is called a logic rather
> than an ontology.  But it is possible to define a dialect
> of CL that uses the labels above to name the syntactic
> features of CL.
>
>  - A thing is anything named by a CL name.
>
>  - A type is a monadic relation that is used as a
>    restriction on a quantified name.
>
> But as Pat said, the boundary isn't clear.  You could say that
> your system does make the following "ontological commitment":
>
>  - If there exists a thing x and a thing y, then there exists
>    a couple consisting of x and y.
>
> In CLIF, that statement could be written as the following axiom:
>
>    (forall (x y) (exists (z) (= z (couple x y))))
>
> However, this level of commitment is far below what you would
> get from adopting any first-order logic plus some obvious
> mathematical theories that can be axiomatized in FOL:  sets,
> functions, relations, integers, real numbers, etc.
>
> But that is still very far from giving us an ontology that can
> represent all the stuff of science, engineering, business, etc.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>    (08)

------------------------------------------------------------
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
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (09)






_________________________________________________________________
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    (010)

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