|
Paola,
Those are big issues. Traditionally, there are two
grand ontological divisions: the object (the physical world, res extensa,
object) and the subject (res cogitans, the thinking entity, with its
emotions, ideas, thoughts, and beliefs). Then there are here three types
of relationships:
subject > object (idealism);
object > subject (objectivism);
object < > subject (realism).
Pick up your favorite.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:32
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
intangibles
Thanks Ian and all
I understand that most intangibles
can be associated with a tangible countepart
even the wind, which we cannot
touch, is indeed a physical phenomenon
however, things exist that are
abstract, ie, do not have physical qualities
I can make a list but surely
you can come up with a list too
emotions (okay, sweat and heartbeat are
indicators of emotions but not emotions
themselves)
ideas
thoughts
beliefs
they are ever so important,
surely lots more
I can accept that mod ontology is mainly concerned
with physical things, although I would argue that
the enemy may also be a
mere nasty intention
in which case, it would elude the IDEAS representation
(as I understand from the diagram)
(correct if wrong)
yes, CYC has
substance, but not sure how other upper ontologies deal with it, was
wondering
from the BORO diagram in mod pdf, I am not sure I understand
what happens to things that cannot be kicked
But I ll study in more
detail and look forward to more examples
basically until now I have
defined upper ontologies to the aristotele/kant fundamental categories
but
il looks like more recent upper ontologies, like DOLCE and IDEAS are somewhat
different in nature
thanks a lot
Pdm
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Ian Bailey <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Paola,
I remember getting
into this discussion at a NATO meeting once. I actually don't think those
things are intangible. In fact, I don't think anything is, we just need to
get behind the names to figure out what is being referred to, and most
people are too lazy to bother. If the reference is to a particular
hostility, then it's an individual – we know its extent (which may be
scattered – e.g. the London tube bombings). If we're talking about how to
classify hostile behaviour then it's a type of individual – its members are
all hostile activities that are undertaken. You have to be clear about what
is understood to be hostile and by whom, so it may need clarifying in the
name you actually give it – e.g. ConsideredHostileByUSGovt,
ConsideredHostileByUKGovt, etc.
The classic example
Chris Partridge always brings up is Agreement. Most people things it's
intangible, but that's just because the word can refer to many things in the
real world, and as it's so commonly used, we become so relaxed about it we
unintentionally conflate its senses into an intangible muddle. It could mean
the act of signing the agreement (an individual). It could be the agreement
text (a type, or if we mean a physical signed copy, an individual). It could
mean the end-to-end process that takes place under the agreement – e.g. a
building services company might describe their ongoing maintenance of a
building for a customer as their "agreement".
Partridge is a great
believer in testing the extent behind a term. He reckons if two people are
not sure whether they are talking about the same thing we should try and
find an example which one thinks is a (e.g.) hostility and the other does
not. Then they are talking about different things. This avoids the problem
of saying that hostility has an (abstract) essence…but you still need to do
the work figure out what the extent is.
My point is that
there's not much point doing ontology if you're unclear about what it is you
are referring to (although it doesn't seem to stop most people…leaving
myself wide open for a babooning from Pat there). If you think something is
intangible, it's just that you haven't pushed hard enough on it to work out
all its senses and related objects. Usually, something seen as intangible
turns out to be a pattern of many things – e.g. you can't just have one
object in the ontology to correspond to your term. People tend to fight this
– it's counter-intuitive. I think getting over the name bias is the key to
developing a useful ontology. Can't say I've got over it myself yet
though.
Cheers
--
Ian
Ian
thanks for the
pointers
>From this link I get a summary view of IDEAS and BORO's, at
last
http://www.ideasgroup.org/file_download/3/MOD+Ontology.pdf
May
I ask, how does it deal with intangible entities? (such as 'threat' or
'hostility' , for example)
Does it just ignore them , deny they exist, or
does it always correlate an intangible to a tangible entity?
Admittedly
there are things that you cant kick, such as the wind
Do uppen
ontologies all have this characteristic of only modelling
tangibles?
thanks
Paola Dm
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Ian Bailey <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Paola,
The website is http://www.ideasgroup.org. There's not much more than the
foundation on there right now. Chris Partridge and I are working on the
documentation now with a target of release in June 09.
There have been a
couple of implementations. Unfortunately, the customer asked us to tackle
subject areas which didn't lend themselves well to ontology, so they're not
exactly paradigm shifting apps. You can download the country-code demo from
http://www.modaf.com/News/69/mod-ontology-demonstrator-released
PS - The UK sponsor
is Luigi Gregori, who I think you already know.
Cheers
_________________________________________________________________
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
|