ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies vs. Web Ontologies

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Liam D. Gray" <lgray95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:22:28 -0700
Message-id: <CAOQQt4OesPRqvTRK_EqzharTiZAGoXJZhb9jrOiMNWiSSBv2aw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
William, by unified spacetime do you mean a field with time as the
fourth-dimension?    (01)

Such that an event could be described as taking place at a certain
place and time, with a four-element vector of data types for position
in space and time?    (02)

And event might be a thing described by date/time. But it kinda makes
sense for date/time to be metrics rather than things.    (03)

Three is a thing, and blue is a thing, /arguably/, and such arguments
could be reasonable. And yet, if there were only nouns and no
adjectives or numbers, how could we describe or quantify anything?    (04)

I guess this one goes all the way back to early philosophers --
materialists, idealists, etc... We may not be able to agree one /what
is/ but we may be able to come to a consensus that describes the
existing consensus about how most people typically thing about things
and their qualities (or the data types used to quantify or describe
them).    (05)

I sorta jumped in here after a long hiatus.  Hope this is
constructive. If not, please disregard... :)    (06)

Liam    (07)

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:59 PM, William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I seek some enlightenment:
>
> Looking at this hierarchy, while it is questionable in many ways, I find it
> troubling that a place is a kind of thing, yet a date/time is a "data type,"
> and not a kind of thing.
>
> I sort of thought space-time was somehow unified. surely more than a
> datatype, such as number, which can be used to identify a location in space
> and time, and yet different from "things."
>
> I can only hope there is some practical reason for this I do not understand,
> as I can more easily guess for many of the other classifiers and their
> otherwise dubious organization.
>
> Wm
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/2012 2:27 PM, Deborah MacPherson wrote:
>> > Curious where this list of facilities came from and
>> > how they came to be organized this way.
>>
>> I just selected a few random examples from the Schema.org hierarchy
>> to illustrate the discussion:
>>
>>     http://www.schema.org/docs/full.html
>>
>> This hierarchy was defined by the consortium founded by Google,
>> Microsoft (Bing), and Yahoo.
>>
>> R. V. Guha was the person from Google who presented a talk on Schema.org
>> in the Ontolog series.  Guha had been the associate director of Cyc in
>> the early 1990s.  He co-authored the book on Cyc with Doug Lenat (1991).
>>
>> So Guha was certainly familiar with the methods used in Cyc, and he
>> made some major contributions to them.  In particular, Guha's PhD
>> dissertation (for which John McCarthy was the thesis adviser and
>> Ed Feigenbaum was on the committee) was about reorganizing the Cyc
>> ontology in microtheories.
>>
>> Guha later went to Apple and then to Netscape, where he worked
>> with Tim Bray to develop RDF.  He also worked with Pat Hayes
>> to define the logic base (LBase) for RDF.  He worked at IBM
>> research for a while in the early 2000s, and he is now at Google,
>> where he is working on Schema.org.
>>
>> So I would assume that the current Schema.org hierarchy was at least
>> influenced by Guha.  I don't know all the reasons why he would have
>> designed it that way, but I do know that one reason why Guha designed
>> RDF is that he believed that Cyc was too complex.  He didn't want to
>> reject logic, but he wanted to find a simpler foundation that could
>> grow into a richer system.
>>
>> And by the way, Guha said that he would have preferred LISP notation
>> for representing triples instead of XML notation.  That may be one
>> reason why Google is emphasizing JSON for Schema.org -- JSON is
>> basically LISP with square brackets and curly braces.
>>
>> John
>>
>> PS:  If I were forced to bet on a W3C design vs a Google design
>> as the likely direction for the future, I'd lean toward Google.
>> But Google has quite a few abandoned designs on their garbage
>> heap, and so does the W3C.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>    (08)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (09)

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