Does anyone have an ontology of Rough Sets they can present to the
group? This is probably a good time to do it. This might actually
be the right place, given Azamat's excellent recent comments on our
difficulties in reaching a consensus:
The third one, if ontology is a core part of reality
(the set of things) or mentality (the set of fundamental concepts) or language
(the set of fundamental terms).
Or, if ontology is a Deus (one being, Logos)
integrating the World (Pater), Knowledge (Filius), and Digital Virtuality
So, having multiple personhood, a kind of multiple
personality disorder, it's both the artifact and not, the captured knowledge
and uncaptured knowledge, it's suitable for automated reasoning and not. Thus
ontology can exist as a fundamental reality, a model of reality, or expressed
as an XML schema, or a Java program (perhaps), or a PDF text, or a relational
database, as Ed suggesting...
Sort of like quarks, threads and nondeterministic fsa, but it reminds
me of rough sets - the method of modeling actual data distributions as valid
outliers scattered over a general theme of structure.
Rough sets would be useful to consider in an ontology that could
possibly reach a consensus. After that, we would have better experiences
to reach consensus with.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all mess up...
If you meet an Ontology, what should you do?
Rich Cooper wrote:
> Agreed. Like the Buddha and Pr0n, we will know the Ontology
when we meet
> it. Restricting the definition in any way at this time is
more likely to
> slow progress than to focus it.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
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