Hi Azamat, (01)
I am the project officer responsible for project NeOn, which you mention below. (02)
NeOn argues that just as in software engineering software artifacts can be
built around libraries and components developed at different times by different
people (and evolving over time), so it should be possible for the same to
happen in knowledge engineer around ontologies as modular components. (03)
NeOn is an environment designed to make it easier for knowledge engineer Jane
to find and integrate as components in her ontology other ontologies
independently developed by knowledge engineers Mary, Sue and Alice. (04)
Please visit the project's web site (05)
http://www.neon-project.org/web-content/ (06)
(and download their freely available toolkit) to find out more about what they
are doing and how far along they've got. (07)
Best, (08)
stefano (09)
--------------------------------------------
Stefano Bertolo, Ph.D. Project Officer
European Commission Information Society DG, Unit E2
Mail: EUFO 1/293 - rue Alcide de Gasperi - L-2920 Luxembourg
Office: Euroforum building - 10, rue Robert Stumper - L-2557 Luxembourg
Tel. +352.4301.37435 Fax. +352.4301.38099
stefano.bertolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
DG INFSO/E2: http://cordis.europa.eu/info-management/
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily those of
the European Commission (010)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
>Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:47 PM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Cc: John F. Sowa
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantics of the mKR language
>
>John wrote"
>AA> Mao said: "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools
>>> of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts
>>> and the sciences ...".
>>
>> That's a good slogan. But there's a big difference between actions
>> and slogans. Remember that about 40 years ago, Mao let
>loose the Red
>> Guards, who tried to destroy the "flowers" (books, art work, and
>> scholars) of several millennia of Chinese arts and sciences.
>
>That's right, John.
>
>For the sake of historical truth, Mao is still numbered among
>the most important figures of the modern world history. The
>reason of his socio-political programs, as Cultural
>Revolution, was a partial political ontology, Legalism, one of
>Hundred School of Thought, and the desire to model the first
>Chinese Emperor, Qin. The legalistic ontology postulates that
>humans are basically evil, and good society comes from a set of laws
>and regulations and totalitarian bureaucracy. Reading and
>scholarship are
>asocial, while farming and weaving are the means to correct
>humans. A comprehensive system of laws, administration
>techniques, position and power, military activities and
>economic expansion are the only means to a just prosperous society.
>
>
>
>As for RHM, he has an honest open mind with sincere intentions
>to move things. Nowadays, it is not easy to find somebody
>seeking not monetary profit but just the pride of accomplishment.
>
>His generall terminology is not a big problem, when giving a
>proper interpretation. Also, his research is not any load to
>the public, unlike those eating the public funds without
>knowing what they are to deliver. Here is a 'rationale' i met
>on the research page of one such project costing Euro
>14 m:
>
>[Most of the existing practices for the development of
>ontologies focus on a single ontology, on a global consistency
>of such an ontology, and, in principle, on a linear
>development. This is very restrictive- it is as if we all
>communicated in a single language and completely disregarded
>our cultural or historical specifics. Single ontology means
>single viewpoint on the problems, situations and solutions. If
>in our everyday life we use many different viewpoints, why
>can't designers of semantic applications and engineers
>developing knowledge models do the same? In NeOn, we see
>several dimensions, in which the existing single-ontology
>style of work need to be enriched].
>
>Which objective the whole project is aimed for: arguing for
>the single ontology or agaist it? That's a real puzzle, not
>Chinese puzzle. I wish to be mistaken, but it sounds as the
>folks don't know that they don't know what they are talking
>about and doing. I am afraid that many of these people are
>among (ontology) reviewers, passing judgments on other
>projects. That's a real harm.
>
>
>Azamat
> ----- Original Message -----
>From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 4:26 AM
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantics of the mKR language
>
>
>> Azamat,
>>
>> I was trying to point out that there are many flowers blooming
>> in the context fields, but most of them have not been adequately
>> identified, analyzed, defined, and classified.
>>
>> AA> John wrote:
>>
>> JFS> The way you [RHM] use it in mKR falls roughly in the ballpark
>>> of various theories, but I and many other people who subscribe to
>>> this forum believe that your discussions about it are so vague that
>>> it doesn't come close to being considered an even marginally useful
>>> "theory".
>>
>> What I was saying is that just adding an at-phrase that represents
>> some undefined "view" does not constitute a theory. Everybody
>> knows that different people have different views, and those views
>> are important for interpreting what they say.
>>
>> Merely acknowledging that fact does not add to our knowledge about
>> context, and claiming that mKR has a theory of context because of
>> its "at view" phrase is misleading, confusing, or false advertising.
>>
>> AA> Mao said: "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a
>hundred schools
>>> of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts
>>> and the sciences ...".
>>
>> That's a good slogan. But there's a big difference between actions
>> and slogans. Remember that about 40 years ago, Mao let loose the
>> Red Guards, who tried to destroy the "flowers" (books, art work,
>> and scholars) of several millennia of Chinese arts and sciences.
>>
>> I don't believe that mKR poses a threat to the arts and sciences,
>> but I was suggesting that Dick might make a more useful contribution
>> if he tried to clarify his claims about context.
>>
>> 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
>
> (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)
|