On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:58 AM, Ian Bailey wrote: (01)
> Hi Rich,
>
> We'd need confirmation from Matthew, but I think ISO15926 pretty
> much has
> this upper structure also.
>
> I'd love it if everyone agreed an ultra high-level doo-dah, but
> there is a
> fly in the ointment...
>
> The difficulty in getting everyone to agree this is criteria for
> identity.
> The upper ontology can only be common if we agree what each category
> means. (02)
I think you mean only if. Just agreement on your categories' meanings
isn't going to make them universally acceptable as a foundation for
everything. (03)
>
> Some ontology developers have no criteria for identity at all. In an
> intensional ontology, it is OK to have the types Equiangular
> Triangle and
> Equilateral Triangle. It isn't OK in an extensional ontology like
> ISO15926,
> BORO or IDEAS, because there is only one extent defined by both
> terms.We (04)
> are also ruthlessly extensional on individuals - if two things have
> the same
> spatial and temporal extent, they are the same thing. (05)
That isn't what 'extensional' means. Everything would be a lot easier
if y'all used the terminology properly. But why do you think that
strict extensionality (in your sense, here) is so desirable? What is
the advantage to all this extensional rigor? Seems on the face of
things that there can be more than one way to describe a given piece
of space/time, eg the famous example of a vase being also a chunk of
plastic, yet having properties (like, being a vase) that the chunk of
plastic doesn't have. (06)
>
>
> It's no good having everyone agree to use the UHLO (I think the
> acronym
> could catch on !), if they all have a different understanding of
> what the
> categories map onto in the real world.
>
> We (Matthew, Chris and I) use this extensional approach because
> we're in the
> dirty business of data integration - we have to deal with real stuff
> in
> transactional systems. (07)
So why does data integration require extensionality (in your sense,
here)? (08)
Pat (09)
> If you're more interested in loftier pursuit of
> machine reasoning, doing all that extensional analysis donkey-work
> isn't
> going to provide quite the same return on investment. Hence, being
> forced to
> use an extensional UHLO (catchy !) is going cause you work you
> probably
> don't need to do.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich
> Cooper
> Sent: 10 February 2009 22:43
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] An Ultra High Level Ontology
>
> Since John Sowa and Pat Hayes (and possibly Ian Bailey) seem to agree
> on the following ultra high level ontology, perhaps we should proclaim
> it an "Initial Ontic Standard" that can be built upon:
>
> -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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
------------------------------------------------------------
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 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|