|From:||Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 12 May 2009 16:59:26 +0200|
So I stand by my initial assertion. First, note that the second you start going to microtheories, we are no longer talking about a single foundation ontology, but a collection of ontologies.
Secondly, I would further conjecture that the intersection of agreement among such a diverse group of people would be so weak as to be of limited use. As you yourself note, the FO would bifurcate as extensions to the more specific needs of users. Here's the crux - the interoperability we seek isn't gained so much by connecting our ontologies to these (necessarily) weak upper concepts, but in establishing the links between the extensions people actually use.
Which brings us back to more or less where we are today. Take the 3D-4D example - they are inconsistent in a single ontology -- unifying them into one ontology isn't a realistic goal. They are two competing paradigms -- one can certainly engineer an interoperation between the two, but it certainly isn't by pointing to a FO. Indeed, figuring out how to translate from one into another doesn't require a foundation ontology, only appropriate interpretations / translations / partial semantic mappings between the two paradigms.
I really don't see how searching for a unique foundation ontology helps at all, since in the end we will still need to generate these mappings for the extensions.
As for properties of arbitrary relations - mathematics has done a good job of identifying the logical properties of binary, ternary etc. relations. Moreover, groups such as LOA in Trento are working on explicating the different types of ontological commitments relations might make (i.e. Rigidity etc). Others (Gangemi et al in Rome, myself and others at STL in Toronto) have worked on identifying the logical / model structure patterns that recur. None of these approaches require agreement on primitive terms in disparate domains. They more directly and immediately work to generate different types of mappings (logical, ontological) between various theories.
I agree that mapping primitives in different domains to basic logical patterns or basic types of ontological commitments is useful for interoperability. But that is a far cry from a unique FO.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:, Jawit Kien|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:, Jawit Kien|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|