As was explained at the smart grid conversations last week, any layered
system which fails to connect to the upper economic ontology [money] is
probably doomed... (01)
"If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker (02)
Toby Considine
TC9, Inc
Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee
Co-Chair, OASIS Technical Advisory Board (03)
Email: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx
Phone: (919)619-2104
http://www.oasis-open.org
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Bottoms
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:23 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The DIKW Hierarchy issue(s) (05)
Oh, it's lost because that is the detail we didn't care
about when the model or higher level abstraction was created. (06)
Back to Duane's drawing. In the ISO model we always have
five (5) things in communications; Open, Close, Send, Rcv
and Status. I'm thinking about this, how this applies to
an ontology. We could also discuss it using a typical
database metaphor. (07)
But the immediate interface from the semantic level seems
like it should be a CG, or part of a CG that is used in
one of the ontology operations. There might be a shim layer
that examines the CG, and crafts an appropriate request of
the ontology. (08)
Am I getting warmer? (09)
-John Bottoms
First Star
Concord, MA
T: 978-505-9878 (010)
Duane Nickull wrote:
> By definition, if truly lost, the answer to all three is “ we do not know”
>
> ;-p
>
> D
>
>
> On 6/18/09 6:56 PM, "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Where is the Life we have lost in living?
>
> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
>
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
>
> Eliot, the Rock
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The DIKW Hierarchy issue(s)
>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for the pointer to that article about the DIKW hierarchy:
>
> JB> A compelling paper on the DKIW hierarchy and its mythologies
> > is by Martin Frické of the University of Arizona:
> >
>
http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2327/01/The%5FKnowledge%5FPyramid%5FDList.pdf
>
> I have heard several talks in which people used the hierarchy of
> Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom. In those talks, the discussion
> of the DIKW hierarchy never added a single bit of useful data,
> information, knowledge, or wisdom.
>
> The only purpose of the DIKW hierarchy is to sprinkle some magic,
> hype, or pixie dust over whatever system or methodology the speaker
> hopes to sell or glorify. I do not find that persuasive.
>
> Following are a few excerpts from the article, which has a good
> analysis that I hope will discourage anyone from presenting any
> more slides with DIKW diagrams.
>
> John Sowa
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> The Knowledge Pyramid: A Critique of the DIKW Hierarchy
>
> by Martin Frické
>
> The paper considers whether the hierarchy, also known as the
> ‘Knowledge Hierarchy’, is a useful and intellectually desirable
> construct to introduce, whether the views expressed about DIKW
> are true and have evidence in favor of them, and whether there
> are good reasons offered or sound assumptions made about DIKW...
>
> The answer to be defended here is that the DIKW pyramid should be
> abandoned. It should no longer be part of the canon of information
> science, and such related disciplines as systems theory, information
> management, information systems, knowledge management, and library
> and documentation science...
>
> Most of the foregoing criticisms can be illustrated by a simple
example.
> The Earth goes around the Sun (as we have learned from Copernicus,
> Galileo, and others). That the Earth goes around the Sun is
information.
> Yet that the Earth goes around the Sun is not data nor can it be
> inferred from data; it is not, and could not be, DIKW information.
> Further, the question of why the Earth goes around the Sun is a
> perfectly reasonable information seeking why-question. And its answer,
> in terms of initial conditions, gravitational forces, and the like,
> is itself information; and the answer, also, would not be considered
> DIKW information....
>
> The DIKW theory also seems to encourage uninspired methodology. The
> view is that data, existing data that has been collected, is promoted
> to information and that information answers questions. This encourages
> the mindless and meaningless collection of data in the hope that one
> day it will ascend to information...
>
> So much for data and information in the DIKW hierarchy. The pyramid
> has no foundations...
>
> Thus far the paper has been somewhat negative in tone...
>
> What about some positive theories? Information science has an interest
> in data, information, knowledge, and, perhaps, wisdom. Are there some
> acceptable explications of these notions?
>
> The interim conclusions are these. There are many different senses
> of “information”. There are even many different senses of
“information”
> in use in Information Science. It is not the case the one of these
> senses is good, all purpose, and the others deficient...
>
> What, then, would be the relationship between data and information?
> All data is information. However, there is information that is not
> data. Almost all of science is information, but, in most contexts,
> it is not data. That the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun
> is information, but not, for most purposes, data.
>
> Information can range much more widely than data; it can be much
> more extensive than the given. The point can be made solely in terms
> of logic. Data typically is expressed by Existential-Conjunctive
logic,
> information requires the full First Order Logic; the latter cannot
> even be expressed in its entirety by the former; and, in particular,
> some statements in the latter amount to information and they cannot
> be inferred from the former. Supposing that they can is the central
> mistake of the DIKW pyramid...
>
> For an account of knowledge, as explained above, Information Science
> should use a propositional account of knowledge, i.e.
knowledge-that...
> This makes knowledge and information synonymous...
>
> A person may have encyclopaedic knowledge of the facts and figures
> relating to the countries of the world; but that knowledge, of itself,
> will not make that person wise. The wide knowledge has to be
applicable
> to tricky problems of an ethical and practical kind, of how to act.
>
> And the wise person must not only have wide appropriate knowledge,
> but they must act in accordance with the knowledge they have...
>
> Then wisdom is merely a matter of using that practical know how to
> achieve appropriate ends. That is a reasonably defensible view —
> it just does not want to be embedded in the DIKW hierarchy.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Sr. Technical Evangelist – Adobe Systems
> Chair – OASIS SOA RM Technical Committee
> Manager – Adobe LiveCycle ES Developers List
>
> Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> Twitter: duanechaos
> Duane’s World TV: http://www.duanesworldtv.org
> Band: http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
> Author – <a
>
href=”http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-he
re.html
> “>Web 2.0 Architecture</a>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|