[ontolog-forum] Ontology of Rough Sets

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 (Spiritus Sanctus).

 

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...

Azamat Abdoullaev

http://www.eis.com.cy

http://neapolis.com

 

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. 

 

JMHO,

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:59 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
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. 

> 

>  

 

--

Tara Athan

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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)