Doug, (01)
I think we agree. (02)
> I agree that Pierce's theory of signs, marks, tokens, and types is a
> good basis. But i suggest that an ontology of more specific classes of
> those types is useful. (03)
Certainly. (04)
Every aspect of a sign can be classified as a mark/token/type. But
the number of different kinds of signs is enormous. Every input from
every sense is a sign, and the number of different kinds is as large
as all the kinds of sensory inputs we might have. (05)
Then the process of interpreting a sign (called semiosis) produces
one or more new signs -- and those can be classified in a huge number
of different ways. (06)
> Cycorp has spent staff decades creating such an ontology. It might
> be useful for anyone considering ontologizing in this area to look at
> what the open-source Open Cyc ontology provides in this area, and maybe
> the more detailed Research Cyc. (07)
Yes, indeed. The Cyc ontology is the largest formal ontology
available, and it is always worthwhile to consider what they did. (08)
Peirce's analysis is not a replacement for Cyc (or any other ontology).
It is a complementary way of looking at things that can frequently
clarify and resolve many puzzling issues. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|