|From:||Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:55:55 -0500|
Three more things,
1) Somewhat more constructively -- if you are looking to create an FO, i think current "core-hierarchies" might also be another good place to explore in the search for primitives. Each core hierarchy acts in effect as an "FO" if you like, for a particular domain. So when I speak of mutually inconsistent ontologies located within a family of ontologies (core hierarchy), i am speaking of divergent views that may share a common parent. Each core hierarchy is an unbounded partial ordering (it's not necessarily a semi lattice, because there may not always be a unique join).
2) You have disparaged the results I showed you as being not practical or too restricted or, to be honest, I don't understand your criticism. The results are extensible. Maybe you don't see the implications of these results?
Perhaps you might point me to a "practical" large scale FOL ontology that is actually being deployed? I'm willing to wager that a large part of what is said in any such ontology is reducible to concepts from mathematics or other generic ontologies (i.e. temporal etc.). Indeed, i'd say this is almost guaranteed, since the ontology is represented in a formal language, likely using commonly understood logical structures. Anyway, I'm really curious and would be fascinated if there existed many such ontologies that did not map into others in the way we've described. Indeed, it would be an astonishing result! ... ...
3) The fact that meanings are interconnected does not mean that modularization is a fantasy. I suggest you pay closer attention to the ways meanings can be connected. How does the addition of Geometrical relations to Time theories change the meanings in both? I'm not sure how familiar you are with the notion of conservative and noncoservative extension. Look them up. It makes the problem of "interconnectedness" a lot less daunting than you think. Take a look at the modularization of PSL. All the meanings are interconnected, yet they somehow made it modular. And it certainly is _not_ a toy ontology.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Ali Hashemi|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|