Milton
wrote:
"I humbly suggest to first
borrow some commonsensical thinking from Tibetan Buddhist logic to simply the
formal discussion about entities, attributes and conceptual ideas laid down in
the 100 plus standards."
Some of them happened being
successful; html and xml, instances of sgml, are widely
used as the markup languages for web pages. Let's hope the rest of them
will be of some use ,and let's also remember that standards are like
laws, binding upon human society.
Presently, there
are fifty and more international standards organizations, like ansi, ieee,
ietf, oasis, w3c, added with regional and national standards entities, all
managed to produce tens of thousands of standards on any conceivable
subject and domain, things, products and processes. ISO is liable for 17500
International Standards, with 1100 new standards published every year,
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue.htm.
This numerous standards
situation makes quite a situation, and should be arranged. The only healthy
way to put special standards into a systematic order is to develop
unifying meta-standards as fundamental standards, mapping and
merging or ordering all the critical but particular standard specifications
in science, logic, engineering and industry, all sorts of standard vocabularies,
definitions, criteria, methods, processes and practices. That is the close
objective of the iboss (international body of ontology and semantics standards),
ontological meta-standards for domain standards, their developing, ordering ,
classification and systematization. The existent iso's international
standards classification hardly makes any sensible sorting, http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics.htm.
Azamat
Abdoullaev
http://semanticwww.com
http://standardontology.org
PS: As regards the Tibetan
logic, it is an extension of the Indian Logic, a
logico-epistemological complement to the Classical Logic of Aristotle,
exemplified by modern Western Logic (as predicate
calculus).
That true knowledge of reality
is practical, useful, and ultimately transforming and liberating human being
is characteristic of Tibetan thought. Its logical system inheriting the
Indian logic traditions is generally based on perception, inference,
evidence, and comparison, aimed to obtain some balanced knowledge about an
individual and the world.
Some works might be useful for
semwebbers as well: the study on Signs and Reasonings, written by the
Thirteenth Dalai Lama's philosophy tutor, http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_9763.html.
One never knows from where he
gets his critical knowledge, on the formal ontology and logic of the world: http://www.igi-global.com/books/details.asp?id=7641
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel
for ontology registration/ Re: [ontolog-forum] One new English word every 98
minutes
It seems some simplification is urgently in order
in this labyrinth of standards. Getting back to my earlier email
about endangered languages and focusing too much on the lingua franca of
the internet, I humbly suggest to first borrow some common-sensical
thinking from Tibetan Buddhist logic to simply the formal discussion
about entities, attributes and conceptual ideas laid down in the 100
plus standards. The buddhists refrain from hard formal logic, yet
seem to be able to capture in generalized, precise terms the essence to
make clear distinctions between e.g. entities and attributes. It
is no coincidence that this clear thinking from the East resurfaced and
was put to use in coming to terms with the fundamental philosophical
issues in quantum physics. In the end the semantic web deals with
natural languages and in most cases natural languages in restricted
domains. The jury is still out on how to best formally describe
the latter. I am myself a speaker of a Caribbean creole language
derived from Portuguese, and have in the past studied aspects of the
utilization of computational linguistics in
selected (read restricted) domains to enhance the communicative
competence of Creole Language as written
languages.
Creole languages form an interesting
field in natural language studies and may point to simplified structures
for formalizing natural languages. My humble hypothesis: the
formal structures for creole languages and the substrate theories for
older languages with larger lexica enriching and helping mature creole
languages (and pidgins into creole languages) can give us some useful
insights into the minimal formal structure requirements for both the
natural language and ontology issues. Since the language
acquisition in the utilization of a creole language in a native and
non-native speaker seem to follow similar "routes" in the linguistically
hardwired pathways in our brains, such simpler natural languages might
just provide a simpler formalization. Milton Ponson GSM: +297
747 8280 Rainbow Warriors Core
FoundationPO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch
Caribbean www.rainbowwarriors.net Project Paradigm: A structured approach
to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders
worldwide www.projectparadigm..info NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for
NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm www.ngo-opensource.org MetaPortal: providing online access to
web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable
development www.metaportal.info SemanticWebSoftware, part of
NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal
project www.semanticwebsoftware.info --- On Sat,
6/13/09, Azamat wrote:
From:
Azamat
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology
registration
To: "[ontolog-forum] "
Cc: "John F. Sowa" ,
"'SW-forum'" , semanticweb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, June 13,
2009, 7:14 PM
John, Thank you for alerting about another
International Standard candidate, now a unifying framework for
classifying and registering metamodels, models and normative model
elements. The message of the specification is in Metamodel
framework for interopreability: part-2: Core model (97 pages); http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N1801-1850/32N1848T-text_for_ballot-FCD3_19763-2.pdf
(defined as "framework for registering artefacts that are based on
metamodel amd model"). The substance of MFI core model is the terms
and definitions section, based on UML and MOF terms, starting with
"abstraction", defined as "essential characteristics of an entity that
distinguish it from all other kinds of entities", seemingly confused
with "attribute". Entity defined as "any concrete and abstract thing
that exists, did exist, or might exists including associations among
(instances of these) things." In the random order, there also
given the senses of object, artefact, instance, container, and
class, metaclass, classifier, class diagrams, and classification;
characteristic, attribute, feature and property; operation and role;
relationship, with its subclasses, subtype, superclass, supertype,
association, generalization, specialization, dependency, link, and
pattern. Relation is narrowly defined as "semantic connection among
model elements". Some meanings are interesting, as conceptual data
model, "data model representing an abstract view of the real world",
concept, framework, or class diagram, " a collection of model elements
such as classes, types, and their contents and relationships", or
class itself, "description of a set of objects sharing the same
attributes, operations, methods, relationships and semantics". Re.
Ontology registration, its classification mechanism is based on
so-called "labelling-quadrant", involving four basic notions:
ModelSign (with its definition), ModelConcept, ModelInstance,
ModelSelection, all used to label and classify ontology components.
International Registration Data Identifier (IDRI) is relied on data
identifier, registration authority identifier, and version identifier;
an example: modelsign format: sign/conceptid/domain
name/rai/version. Metadadata Registry components (Data Element
Concept, Conceptual Domain, Value Domain, Data Element). Given that
we are lost in all sorts of information standards, just w3c has been
managed to create 110 standards (must be in the Guinness book of
records), another one will not make a difference unless it is
involving ontology. Then it should be recognized that the
specification is lacking effective modeling constructs, as many other
existing ontology language standards, and as such, hardly can make a
standard for ontology registry, imo.. Strongly believe any
standardization work involving ontology and semantic technology
standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with effective
knowledge and content systems and real world
applications. Azamat Abdoullaev http://www.standardontology.org-----
Original Message ----- From: "John F. Sowa" < sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "[ontolog-forum]" < ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday,
June 12, 2009 10:59 PM Subject: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for
ontology registration > The Final Committee Draft (FCD)
of the Metamodel for ontology > registration: > >
http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N1801-1850/32N1831T-text_for_ballot-FCD_19763-3.pdf>
> This is part 3 of the ISO/IEC 19763, Information Technology
-- Metamodel > Framework for Interoperability (MFI): >
> http://metadata-stds.org/19763/index.html>
> >
_________________________________________________________________ >
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 (01)
|