On 01/05/2011 1:10 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> On 4/30/2011 11:24 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> Note that a theory about how (some aspect of) the world works is
>> qualitatively different from a theory about how specific objects
>> interact using the more general theory. One could distinguish the
>> general theory ontology from more specific knowledge bases about
>> separate sets of instances of the types of things which the theory
>> is about.
> I agree with that as a general principle, but there are borderline
> cases that blur the distinction.
>
> For example, the sun, earth, and moon are specific objects
> that also happen to be one of their kind (at least for normal
> human experience). So any general ontology that is adequate
> for human experience will include many terms that are defined
> in terms of those special objects: day, night, month, year,
> summer, winter, eclipse, latitude, longitude, mountain,
> earthquake, ocean, sunburn, etc.
>
> DF
>> For our purposes, we could consider Vocabulary, Theory, and Data Contexts.
> For various applications, there will be specific entities that have
> as privileged a position as the sun or the earth. For example,
> if you're designing an ontology for income taxes, you have to
> consider the IRS and the US gov't as special individuals that
> are critical to defining many general terms.
> (01)
If you do business internationally, you will also have to map the views
of foreign governments into your own view of transactions and assets.
The odds of China, the US and EU agreeing on a common view of revenue,
expense classes and tax treatment of transactions is zero.
Mapping the description of transactions and assets from one view to the
other is likely going to be a key driver for the adoption of tools and
technologies based on ontology. (02)
Ron
> And if you design an ontology for the XYZ Corporation, you will
> probably need to treat that Corp. as a privileged entity.
>
> For 49 states in the US, there are many general legal principles
> that cover all of them. But there is one state that does not
> fit generalizations that cover the other 49: Louisiana.
>
> All the other states are based on principles derived from English
> Common Law. But Louisiana is based on the French system. 208 years
> have passed since Napoleon sold it to the US, but they still have
> parishes instead of counties. And the differences are greater
> than just a change of terminology.
>
> That is just one more example why I don't expect the world
> to adopt a single world-wide ontology for a long, long time.
>
> 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
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|