It seems to me that for ontologies that
are relevant to businesses, there must be a similar but separate
grounding requirement, to that of a child or other mammal.
If one can identify the first, early arm and leg movements of the
corporation, the rest would presumably follow from there. This
would be things like Searle's social constructs (leading on into
commitments, agreements, contracts, transactions etc.), the basic
concepts of double-entry book-keeping (profit, loss, asset,
liability), and so on. This would form the basic vocabulary, the
basic geometry if you will, from which other more complex concepts
are derived, and which are relevant in perceivign the semantics of
things within the business's environment (buildings, shipping,
payment systems etc.).
On 03/09/2013 13:40, Sandro Rama Fiorini wrote:
Linda Smith's work in developmental psychology is quite
interesting to ontologists. Her research in the development of
whole/part recognition in children is particularly intriguing.
This study is one of many that show how the semantics of natural
language is grounded in the neural mechanisms of perception and action.
Isn't that what the symbol grounding problem is all about?
When I try to use ontologies to do something useful in a computer
a frequently have to overcome the problem of converting data
patterns into symbols and symbols into actions. There is still
relatively little research in how to bridge this semantic gap, if
you considering how important it is.
Sandro Rama Fiorini
Institute of Informatics
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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