Re: [ontolog-forum] Sharing and Integrating Ontologies

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

The word "being" has more of a " living" / or " has life" sound to it.   Where as "entity" has more of a neutral sound and " object" definitely has a non living sound to it, even though they are not modeled that way .   Abstract representation of living, non living, conceptual, imaginary things are called entities / or objects in computer science.

The difference between diagrams and words/ text  is that a human mind perceives a diagram like an object in a wholesome way, where as words and text is read in a  linear manner.  Understanding a diagram is much faster than reading the words or text..  It is easier to learn with visual aid like diagrams.    In other countries math is taught in a different way more practical way....  Put four sticks on the floor, make them two piles of two each.  Make a child count them couple of times.  The child will remember that 2+2 is 4. quite easily.    But if you write a theorm for it, probably I would not have taken that class.. ...

"Thingame" sounds funny!   But this group is snooty like Chris said.  We need more snooty word..

Pavithra

--- On Wed, 9/29/10, Rick Murphy <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Rick Murphy <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sharing and Integrating Ontologies
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 10:28 AM

John, thanks for all the great info in your last response!

On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 08:38 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
> But it's convenient to have a pronounceable word.  Therefore, an
> technical term, such as 'entity', would have fewer distractions than
> a more common word like 'being'.

Agreed. I was pleasantly surprised with the clarity provided by Wordnet
on this issue. Wordnet defines entity as "that which is perceived or
known to have its own distinct existence." Thing is an entity that is
not named, a hyponym of entity and within the semantic field of entity.

> > BTW - I tried this experiment tonight as did my daughter. With your eyes
> > closed, try to see the number 1. Can you actually see it, or can you
> > only imagine it ?

> The normal uses of the words 'see' and 'imagine' don't really apply
> to such questions in any clear way.

The purpose of my experiment is to determine whether the brain can
produce signs. At least in the case of my daughter and me, we can't see
the number 1 with our eyes closed, we only imagine it. By imagine I mean
describe the shape.

> But the recent work on brain scans provides some interesting data:

>   3. When somebody thinks about an image or a melody, brain scans
>      show that the same sensory areas light up that were stimulated
>      by the senses.  However, the frontal lobes, which tend to be
>      quiescent in perception, tend to light up during attempts to
>      imagine the sensation.

Seems inconclusive to my experiment. Do you know of any experiments
with a purpose similar to the one I describe above?

> John

--
Rick



_________________________________________________________________
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)