Hi, Chaim,
I didn’t mean to deprecate or denigrate or misrepresent the 10 Pillars of Knowledge (10PK), so apologies if I did. Originally I looked at 10PK in 2008 or so.
Is 10PK available to use, say as a good mid-level ontology of knowledge areas? I.e., can we incorporate it into our own ontologies? Assuming we agree to your
licensing terms, etc.? I’m not sure what those are. Can you tell us?
Thanks much,
Leo
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery & Understanding, C2C
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of chaim Zins
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 10:48 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Human knowledge domains ontology
Dear Sergey and colleagues,
I find the discussion very interesting. However, without delving into the theoretical discussion on the meanings of "formal ontologies" vs. "subject classifications" and the
like, I would like to relate to your initial question.
10 Pillars of Knowledge (10PK) is aimed to present the structure of human knowledge. It presents thousands of fields. It is based on theoretical foundations and empirical study
of nearly 10,000 terms. However, 10PK can be used as a basis for developing an automated system for representing knowledge, classifying resources, and the like.
By the way, 10PK is systematic.It meets 4 criteria of a systematic system (e.g., formal ontology or scholarly-based subject classification): exclusivity, exhaustiveness, adequacy,
and accuracy.
Finally, note that the 10PK structure refers to the map's categories (e.g. theory, principles, substances), and not to the fields of knowledge (e.g., philosophy of physics,
physics, chemistry). The fields are mapped by the the 10PK map.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
William, Leo, and Sjir,
I think we mostly agree on the basic issues, but there are many side
issues and qualifications that I'd like to comment on:
WF
> I have to disagree that the organization of domains of human endeavor
> is the work of lexicographers.
One important distinction is whether the definitions are intended
to be descriptive or normative. Linguists and lexicographers try
to describe language usage as accurately as possible while avoiding
biases and value judgments.
But educators try to organize and standardize the curriculum with
many normative goals in mind: ease of teaching, ease of learning,
prerequisites for other courses, systematic coverage of the subject...
Leo
> In general, the mapping is n terminologies to 1 ontology,
> but realistically things can get more complicated.
I would put more emphasis on the second clause. Physics, for example,
uses terms like mass, energy, momentum, velocity, etc., in every
subfield. But they adapt the representations to the problems with
different granularity, coordinate systems, approximations, etc.
For fluid mechanics, the Navier-Stokes equations are so complex,
that they use different -- and contradictory -- approximations
for different aspects and subproblems of the same application.
Sjir
> community specific terminologies and even more are part
> of such an engineering approach.
Even in the same community, different people use the same terms
with different definitions. A physician, a nurse, a pharmacist,
and a patient may use the same name for the same drug. But
they think about the drug in different ways at different levels
of detail.
John
--
Chaim Zins, PhD.
Knowledge Mapping Research, Jerusalem, Israel;
Visiting Professor at the Information Science Post-Graduate Program, São
Paulo State University (UNESP), Marilia, Brazil.
Mail: Chaim Zins
26 Hahaganah St, Jerusalem 97852, Israel;
Tel/Fax: 972-2-5816705
Email: chaim.zins@xxxxxxxxx
Homepage: www.success.co.il
10 Pillars of Knowledge: Map of Human Knowledge
(http://www.success.co.il/knowledge/index.html)
|