Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of on

["Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Marcelino,

 

I think you will find people here who favour one or other of these approaches. Which they favour will often be determined by the kinds of problems they are interested in.

 

Me. I’m a realist interested in the application of ontology to engineering.

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 1489 880185

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

 

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.

 

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcelino Sente
Sent: 21 March 2012 18:16
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of ontologies

 

In this paper, the author discuss some aspects raised by this topic and present a "cognitivist ontology".

 

http://www.mind-consciousness-language.com/CarstensenTowardsCognitivistOntologies.pdf

 

The paper present a contrast between two main views within the research program in ontologies:

- Realist view: the ontology is build upon universals in reality rather than concepts. A good ontology is one which corresponds to reality as it exists beyond our concepts.

- Conceptualist view: the ontology is a explicit specification of a conceptualization. A good ontology is one which captures our shared conceptualization.

I would like to know the position of the members of this forum about this aspects.

 

Thanks

 

2012/3/16 Marcelino Sente <zaratruta@xxxxxxxxx>

Let consider this assertion (refered as A1):
“It should be emphasized that we are talking about  a perceived world and not a metaphysical world without a knower” (Rosch 1978, p.29)

How this assertion impacts on the research program of ontologies?

Some initiatives regarding conceptual modeling, systems interoperability, and conceptual analysis have been using of theories coming from the domain of formal ontology. I say "formal ontology", in the sense of Husserl, as analogous to formal logic. Whilst formal logic deals with formal logical structures (e.g.,truth, validity, consistency) independently of their veracity, formal ontology deals with formal ontological structures (e.g., theory of parthood, types and instantiation, identity, dependence, unity), i.e., with formal aspects of entities irrespective of their particular nature. Some (so called) foundational ontologies (as UFO - unified foundational ontology) embody several conceptions coming from the "formal ontology". So...What A1 say about the use of conceptions imported from "formal ontology" to the territory of semantic web, communication among computer and humans and systems interoperability?

How can we view and compare the contributions related to the realist semantics and cognitive semantics, regarding our objetives expressed above (semantic web, communication among computer and humans and systems interoperability)? Does make sense think in terms of cognitive semantics in the reserach program of ontologies?

Reference:
E. Rosch (1978) Principles of Categorization. in: E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (Eds.),  Cognition and Categorization. pp. 27-48, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)