ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all mess up...

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <243870.20240.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dr Sowa,

In the case of mathematics or any scientific fields where information is formalized and accepted by accredited institutes,  the Ontology that defines or describes that information can be standardized too.    Mathematics is very symmetrical..

Here is an example is a fun example of it..

1 x 8 + 1= 9 
12 x 
8 + 2= 98 
123 x 
8 + 3= 987 
1234 x 
8 + 4= 9876 
12345 x 
8 + 5= 98765 
123456 x 
8 + 6= 987654 
1234567 x 
7= 9876543 
12345678 x 
8 + 8= 98765432 
123456789 x 
8 + 9= 987654321 

1 x 
9 + 2 = 11
12 x 
9 + 3 = 111
123 x 
9 + 4 = 1111 
1234 x 
9 + 5 = 11111
12345 x 
9 + 6 = 111111 
123456 x 
9 + 7 = 1111111
1234567 x 
9 + 8 = 11111111 
12345678 x 
9 + 9 = 111111111 
123456789 x 
9 +10= 1111111111  1111111111 


Well to address your point,

 Remember you had provided a link for one of your presentation that had graphic of small building blocks with shapes.   You had chosen two ways of describing the ontology for it.     Since both were correct,  one could choose one of them as the standard and formalize it or endorse it as signature ontology for that.   So everyone can reuse it, and make the code and the structure interoperable...

I still  do not think that we messed up.  In business world, each organization may have thier own information, local to the organization.  In such cases, the whole domain ontology may not be interoperable with other organization.   But at pieces may be.  If they follow some scientific pattern,  we may reach close to the desired goal .  

Regards,
Pavithra



--- On Wed, 1/12/11, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all mess up...
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 9:14 AM

Folks,

Digital computers don't do nuances.

That means anything that is designed to be implemented on a computer
must be precisely defined.  But the methods by which people design
their implementations are open to all the same kinds of informal
intuitions and practices that scientists use to get new ideas.

I would qualify Chris P's comment:

> I find amusing that the Gruber CS-AI sense seems to go out of its
> way not to talk about the things that the philosophy sense does.

Tom Gruber's definition is Tom's own personal view.  The term
'conceptualization' comes from the book _Logical Foundations of AI_
by Genesereth & Nilsson, which is more nuanced.  But there are as
many CS or AI views as there are people working in CS or AI.

I agree with Chris M:

> What, exactly, is the "expressing" relation between
> a representation and an ontology so understood?
> It seems to me that there are no scientifically
> rigorous answers to these questions.

I don't believe that it's possible to state a precise definition
of what an ontology is or should be.  It's better to use
Wittgenstein's method for defining 'game':

Give a bunch of examples and say "These are ontologies.
An ontology is anything that is more similar to these things
than to anything that is not usually called an ontology."

I wouldn't say that such a definition is "unscientific".
It allows progress, but it doesn't rule out critiques about
some practices that may be better or worse than others.

That is, in fact, how mathematicians define 'number'.  They
started with positive integers.  Then they added rational
numbers, irrational numbers, zero, negative numbers,
imaginary numbers, complex numbers, quaternions, numbers
modulo some integer, floating point numbers, fixed point
numbers with various criteria for what happens to overflows...

Just as the concept of number grew as a result of the way
that working mathematicians talked about their work, the
concept of an ontology is going to grow.  Any attempt to
edict a definition in terms of necessary and sufficient
conditions would be counterproductive -- it would needlessly
restrict innovation.

John

_________________________________________________________________
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>