Duane, Azmat et al, (01)
"The professor walked to the blackboard and said, 'Let
"S" be the sales of turnips in one week'. I interrupted
and asked why he started with that expression, and his
reply was, 'Well, we have to start somewhere. Now, let
"S" be the sales of turnips in one week'." (02)
I agree that we have several definitions of ontology
(and other terms) and that is why I started by earlier asking
for a few definitions to see if there was one that is
common to the group. Since some of us are, to a greater
degree or not, attached to the semantic web then I believe
it falls to them to push back on the standards process to see
if these terms can be clarified. I can assure you that for
every definition of "entity" I have seen I can produce a
counter that is at odds with that definition. (03)
It seems that Duane's drawing is very interesting and since
it is placed in an ISO-like stack that would imply it has
inputs and outputs. It would be interesting to speculate on
what those inputs and output were or how they were defined.
I believe that constraints can help us define terms in the
absence of a formal and sufficient definition. (04)
JohnS pointed out a few cogent remarks about the DKIW
hierarchy and the difficulties with research and scope in
that research. It seems to me that practical (in the real
world sense) definitions need to keep one eye on the reality
behind perception upon which we can agree. (I understand that
this calls into question some cultural notions.) And we, in
modern society, do come to agreement on at least some very
thorny issues with respect to probablistic questions and we do
fairly well. It appears to me that many of these issues are
rooted in the fact that generally, there is no metagrammar for
maths. (05)
That means that they work quite well within their self-evident
system but may not perform as designed in the real world.
Just because 2 + 2 = 4 within one system does not mean that
it is always true in all domains. Perhaps one day we will have
a maths metagrammar system that can be used to define the
constraints of the model environments we work in. (06)
A compelling paper on the DKIW hierarchy and its mythologies
is by Martin Frické of the University of Arizona: (07)
http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2327/01/The%5FKnowledge%5FPyramid%5FDList.pdf (08)
-John Bottoms
First Star
Concord, MA
T: 089-5055-9878 (09)
Azamat wrote:
> SH: "we expect to proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation."
>
>
>
> What i like with the OWL 0, its high understanding of the subject: "Ontology
> is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to the science of describing
> the kinds of entities in the world and how they are related."
>
> And what i am missing with the OWL 2, the former definition, belittled as:
> "Ontologies are formalized vocabularies of terms, often covering a specific
> domain and shared by a community of users. They specify the definitions of
> terms by describing their relationships with other terms in the ontology."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>
> Here are more inconsistencies. "OWL 2 is a knowledge representation
> language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about a
> domain of interest...these basic notions: Axioms: the basic statements that
> an OWL ontology expresses; Entities: elements used to refer to real-world
> objects; Expressions: combinations of entities to form complex descriptions
> from basic ones".
>
> Let's see what entities are here. "All atomic constituents of statements, be
> they objects (John, Mary), categories (female) or relations (married) are
> called entities. In OWL 2, we denote objects as individuals, categories as
> classes and relations as properties."
>
> Are all these entities, individuals, classes, properties, entities of
> real-world objects?
>
> In the primer there is a heading. "Advanced class relationships: (class)
> intersection, union and complement",
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090611/
>
> If somebody proposing a modeling language "designed to represent rich and
> complex knowledge about things, groups of things, and relations between
> things", it would be wise to distinguish the formal set theory operations,
> f: SxS to S, from the relationships proper, R = SxS, where S is an unordered
> collection of distinct elements (members, objects, entities), and R is an
> ordered collection of distinct elements. The samples of pairing
> relationships between sets (classes) are "is equivalent of", "is a
> complement of", "is a subset of", "has the same cardinality", etc., between
> elements "is equal to", "is less than", etc. In algebra of relation, we do
> operations (binary) on relations (binary).
>
> I mentioned before with other standard candidate and have to repeat again:
> "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."
>
> I'd add: an open public debate as far as "the W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology
> Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language...'', and as far as standards are
> today may go as binding laws, both for humans and machines.
>
>
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> http://www.semanticwww.com
>
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@xxxxxx>
> To: <semantic-web@xxxxxx>; <public-owl-dev@xxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:14 PM
> Subject: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts
>
>
>
>>OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
>>Recommendation. This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
>>system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2. The design is
>>not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
>>problems that come up during implementation. Also, the primer, quick
>>reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative documents
>>intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, indicating
>>we think they are essentially done.
>>
>>A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>>
>>It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
>>other OWL 2 documents. We'll be tracking what we know of
>>implementations here:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
>>
>>
>>Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
>>public-owl-comments@xxxxxx by 30 July. Soon after that, we expect to
>>proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation. Discussion
>>among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@xxxxxxx
>>
>> -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|