Mike,
Data records are things also - I don't think OWL does anything different from
any other language in determining the subject of the model.
-Cory (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Bennett
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:45 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program
> of ontologies
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the feedback - great perspectives as always.
>
> I think the semiotic dimension is an important one and could possibly be given
> some kind of formal treatment in modeling languages or in models somehow. I
> made the point at the OMG last week that when thinking about models one
> should consider as separate dimensions the questions of what elements in the
> model represent (semiotics), what form of logic or math the symbols are
> grounded in, and what meta-level the model sits at. Sometimes people seem to
> conflate these, or try to interpret ontological or semiotic issues by framing
>them
> in terms of meta-levels, which IMHO is a mistake. It would be desirable if
>model
> languages were framed in terms of all three dimensions rather than simply in
> metamodeling terms as many of them are at present.
>
> Of course OWL already addresses the semiotic dimension by making everthing a
> Thing. I'm sure there must be potential for capturing aspects of the
>ontological
> commitments in more detail, but I'm not sure what that would look like.
>
> Mike
>
> On 29/03/2012 22:37, John F. Sowa wrote:
> > Rich, Mike, Chris,
> >
> > RC
> >> Limiting ourselves to just logic is a poor strategy, IMHO.
> > Peirce followed the tradition of the Seven Liberal Arts in dividing
> > semiotics in three parts: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Those are
> > the three language arts. The four mathematical arts are arithmetic,
> > geometry, music, and astronomy.
> >
> > With a bit of updating of the subject matter, we need all of them.
> >
> > MB
> >> Ontology notations allow one to make a meaningful model of some domain.
> >> How you apply those (i.e. whether the meaningful concepts you define
> >> relate to some set of real things or not) is a separate matter.
> >>
> >> So the considerations of what kind of world you are modeling, and
> >> what you choose to model it with, are two separate matters.
> > I agree. But all our communications among people and computers are
> > based on signs. Mathematics has come a long way since medieval days,
> > and we can apply math to semiotics. That is a task that Peirce began
> > over a century ago. Modern computers are one result, and they can help.
> >
> > CM
> >> Ontology engineering is about the representation of information. But
> >> there is no limitation on the type of information - it can be
> >> anything from payrolls to art to ethics. And, obviously,
> >> extra-logical methods and tools will be involved in the analysis and
> >> collection of that information. But the medium of representation in
> >> ontology engineering is formal logic and constructing ontologies in
> >> formal logic is the name of the game. It makes about as much sense to talk
> about "limiting"
> >> ontologists to "just logic" as it does to talk about "limiting" a
> >> conductor to "just an orchestra"...
> > I agree.
> >
> > Just a bit of emphasis: logic is the language of digital computers.
> > Every machine instruction and every combination of machine
> > instructions can be defined in logic and be translated to logic. If
> > we are going to design anything that can be programmed on a computer,
> > logic is the only game in town.
> >
> > But even within those limitations, there is a huge amount that can be
> > done to make our systems more user friendly. For my summary of what
> > can be done, see the following article and slides (there is some
> > overlap between them, but not much):
> >
> > http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/futures.pdf
> > Future directions in semantic systems
> >
> > http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal.pdf
> > The goal of language understanding
> >
> > RC
> >> I am discussing ontology development from the point of view of
> >> various users, not only from the point of view of professors or logicians.
> > Absolutely!!! Every version of logic is based on the way people talk
> > and have talked for many millennia before Aristotle. See the
> > following
> > article:
> >
> > http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf
> > The role of logic and ontology in language
> >
> > For recommendations about how to implement these ideas in computer
> > systems that don't require anything beyond a high-school education for
> > people to use logic effectively, see futures.pdf and goal.pdf.
> >
> > RC
> >> If ontology can't point to meaningful objects and relationships, then
> >> it is about nothing.
> > Exactly! Peirce made the observation that every proposition in logic
> > must have at least one indexical to relate its terms to something in
> > the domain of application. More specifically, each variable in any
> > logical statement must be associated with a pointer that designates
> > something in the real world.
> >
> > RC
> >> It seems to me that the number of possible categories is virtually
>limitless.
> > I agree.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mike Bennett
> Director
> Hypercube Ltd.
> 89 Worship Street
> London EC2A 2BF
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
> Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
> www.hypercube.co.uk
> Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> ____
> 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
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|