[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Offline note -An approach!

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <833303.90218.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This whole discussion started with the topic
  - Past, Present, and Future of Ontology
Dr. Sowa and team:

The term ontology has its origin in philosophy, and has been applied in many different ways.


Ontology (from the Greek ν, genitive ντος: of being <neuter participle of εναι: to be> and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences


In theory, an ontology is a "formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualization".An ontology provides a shared vocabulary, which can be used to model a domain — that is, the type of objects and/or concepts that exist, and their properties and relations


In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts. It is used to reason about the properties of that domain, and may be used to define the domain.
I think it is a good idea to evaluate the past, present and future of Ontology's!  People lets not argue, it is a holistic approach to do so..
But what are  list of questions to ask to accomplish the above ?
For example,  - 
- History  - Origination / Authors etc and Usage and how is it relevant to modern times? - Were any Ontologies developed, and are they available and Why were they developed? How were they used?
 Present - 
           -   Are the information about Ontologies defined? Standardized and documented ? And is it available?
           -  What are the knowledge domains available at present?
          -   What are the technologies?
          -  What are the current standards that are being used?
           -  Why are they developed ( intention) ? Is the intention documented?
           -  Who are the owners ? Who are the users ?
            - How are they being used ?   ( applications, knowledge management systems , AI systems etc.. web based applications etc.  web 2.0 tools etc)
          -   Where are being stored? Availability etc
          -   Are there any security issues that needs to be addressed for Ontologies?
          - Is it a good idea to collect the Ontologies?  What are the pitfalls? What are the best practices ?
           - What needs to be changed with the way we work with Ontologies?
           --- ???
          What needs to be collected  in the future?
          What are future standards, technologies?
          What are the research areas?
           What are organization and people involved in research?
          What is the perceived usage?  Semantic Web, AI, Knowledge management, Web 3.0  etc etc...
          How radically we want to change the web and how does that effect Ontologies ( definition, collection and usage ..) etc..
        -  future Pitfalls, best practices
        -- ??
These are not concise set of questions, but we need to first of all come up with a set of Intelligent questions  !   ( so anyone who claims  innovative  can contribute to this ..)
In my opinion, one has to define the question, before start answering them.. 
( About Ayn Rand,  even Allen Greenspan was her supporter, I believe it is normal to feel impressed about her books, if you lived in the 19- 20th century and were a teenager..  I was impressed by her books when I was a teenager.  I do not want to feel awkward about it now.. ) 
People do grow up and accept more harmonious wholistic world, rather than radical thinking!  Radical thinking helps to make a difference, to create a change agent, but wholistic appraoch creates harmony and stability that is required for sustainaibility!  One can not substitute with the other
Pavithra Kenjige



--- On Fri, 5/29/09, FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Offline note
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 12:57 PM

Yes and the chief engineering executives and spin doctors always get it right after the act

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 29 May, 2009 3:40:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Offline note

Mike and Frank,

MB> As an engineer, I'd say the test is whether or not you end up
> with something that works.

That is the engineering test.  The goal of pure science is to
discover what is true.  The goal of engineering is to use science
to solve problems within the limits of budgets and deadlines.

FK> Re: Judgmentalism:  that translate to e that you do not like
> them, which is fine with me.

Actually, many of the people who believe those -isms are fine as
people, but the primary test for their beliefs to be scientific
is testability by observation and experiment.  The problem with
those three -isms is that they don't or can't test their claims.

FK> Citing Aristotle, Plato and the rest of the people as you did
> the other day as pre-runners of ontology sounds to me a very
> Marxist move who started their similar list with Proudon,
> La Salle, The Luddites, Feuerbach, Hegel, etc. to support
> their point

The method of citing historical precedents is very appropriate
as an aid to understanding the development of any field.  But
it's not a method for proving that the assumptions are true.

The purpose of my brief history of ontology was not to show
that it is scientific, but to show the contrary:  unlike
physics, which has progressed very far beyond Aristotle,
ontology has made much less progress -- in fact, Aristotle's
original version is better than many of the things you can
download today from the WWW.

FK> Early medical researcher were grave robbers...

So what?  They needed cadavers to study anatomy.  The victims
never felt any pain.

FK> "chemists" were alchemists,

Yes, indeed.  And the alchemists developed many useful results,
good equipment, and experimental techniques that the chemists
extended with more precise theories and practices.

FK> Medicine is not science, ask the practitioners...

That's true.  It's a branch of engineering for which some of
the science (e.g. anatomy) is fairly well developed (thanks
to the good supply of cadavers).  But a great deal of the
necessary science is still under development.

FK> they are even licensed to kill a fetus

That is not a scientific issue.  The only thing that science can
say is that a fertilized egg develops into a newborn child by
a continuous process.  The question of whether and when it is
permissible to stop that process is a matter of ethics, religion,
and law.


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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

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>