|
[Opinion on]
Everything is a concept: entities, relations among them,
properties, attributes, even many instances/individuals (days of the week; Joe
Montana; etc.) Especially when you think of concept in animal mental apparatus
as a placeholder for something real in the real world (I am a realist). Sure, I
have a concept for 'Joe Montana'. Is that concept a general notion, i.e., a
class of something? No.
The general problem (from my perspective) is that we are
typically always addressing two perspectives: 1) ontology, i.e., what exists in
the world? and 2) semantics, i.e., what is the relationship between our ways of
talking/thinking and those things in the world? To me it's clear that we are
talking about (1) things of the world, but our language (and our thought, I
would say) interposes another layer or two. I would say there are minimally 3
things: 1) our language (terms and compositions of terms), 2) the senses of
terms (and their compositions) which we might characterize as concepts, and 3)
real world referents that those senses or concepts somehow point to. In formal
semantics, a good theory of reference (i.e., (3)) is hard to come by.
[Opinion off]
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation,
Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for
Innovative Computing & Informatics
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515
Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA
22102-7508, USA
me-thinks this is a leftover from DL-speak in which
'concept' refers to the classes, not the relationships.
I prefer the
broader use of 'concept' whereby one speaks of the concept of having a
brother, or of being a mentor (which of course are
relationships).
Good to raise this ambiguity.
Mike
==========================
Michael Uschold
M&CT, Phantom Works
425 373-2845
michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx
==========================
----------------------------------------------------
COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu
tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html
Correction. Second sentence should read:
Are relations
not "conceptual" in the way that "concepts" are?
Sorry 'bout that.
On Apr 20, 2007, at 20:57 , Bill Andersen wrote:
Pat,
How come "relations" are a separate category from "concepts"? Are
relations not "conceptual" in the way that "conceptual" are? If it is
the case that 'concept' is just parlor speak for those things that we
typically represent with nodes in a taxonomy or unary predicates in a logic,
and if 'relation' is used to talk about those things that are not "concepts"
(i.e. the things we like to represent with predicate terms of arity greater
than one), then the distinction seems artificial. Should there not be
just "concepts" divided into the 1-, 2- ... n-ary cases?
.bill
On Apr 20, 2007, at 19:12 , Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
In discussions I use:
"A representation of the structure of concepts
and the relations
between them, in a form that a computer can
reason with."
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
CNTR-MITRE
260 Industrial Way West
Eatontown NJ 07724
Eatontown: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
-----Original Message-----
Of Peter F Brown
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:08 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology
Framework Draft
StatementfortheOntology Summit
Too many too's... ;-)
But seriously, are we looking for a Gartner
Group-style 4 word
mission
statement to make it sound good, or do we want
a formulation that
actually does mean something and that we can
agree on?
Brevity does not
always equate with clarity: if I have to choose
to sacrifice one, it
would be brevity.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
Deborah
MacPherson
Sent: 20 April 2007 16:02
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology
Framework Draft Statement
fortheOntology Summit
"a formal description of
terms that represent concepts and
relationships in as
chosen subject matter of
interest"
is too long, too much of a mouthful of too many
words.
Debbie
Its almost good enough... But an ontology is
more than just about
terms.
How about:
"a formal description of
terms that represent concepts and
relationships in as
chosen subject matter of interest"
Mike
==========================
Michael Uschold
M&CT, Phantom Works
425 373-2845
==========================
----------------------------------------------------
COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get
a human on
the phone, go
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 3:08 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology
Framework Draft
Statement for
theOntology Summit
I agree: we've worked with the definition "a
formal descriptions of
terms and the relationships between them" [1]
as being good
enough to
know what we talking about when we're talking
about what
we're talking
about...and "good enough" should be good
enough.
Peter
[1] From 'OASIS Reference Model for
Service-Oriented Architecture',
p17,
see
-----Original Message-----
Chris
Welty
Sent: 19 April 2007 20:23
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology
Framework Draft
Statement for
the Ontology Summit
Surely after 15 years we can do better than
"specification of a
conceptualization"? Isn't it time we put that
one to rest?
-Chris
Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
All,
Here is our draft statement about the
Ontology Framework.
We invite
you to consider and discuss this -- now and
in next
week's sessions.
We intend this to be an inclusive
characterization of what an
ontology
is. Inclusive: meaning that we invite you
to consider
where you and
your community is with respect to these
dimensions. If you have
concerns or issues, restatements or
elaborations, please
let us know
now and next week. This will shortly be
posted on the
Framework Wiki
page:
meworksFor
Consideration.
Thanks much,
Tom Gruber, Michael Gruninger, Pat Hayes,
Deborah McGuinness, Leo
Obrst
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE
Corporation, Information Semantics
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive,
M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508,
USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:
Community
Files:
Community Wiki:
--
Dr. Christopher A. Welty
IBM Watson
Research Center
+1.914.784.7055
19
Skyline Dr.
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:
Community Files:
Community Wiki:
No virus found in this incoming
message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database:
269.5.5/769 - Release Date:
19/04/2007 17:56
No virus found in this outgoing
message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database:
269.5.5/769 - Release Date:
19/04/2007 17:56
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:
Community Files:
Community Wiki:
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:
Community Files:
Community Wiki:
--
*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
Projects Director,
Accuracy&Aesthetics
The content of this email may contain
private
and confidential information. Do not
forward,
copy, share, or otherwise distribute
without
explicit written permission from all
correspondents.
**************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:
Community Files:
Community Wiki:
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:
Community Files:
Community Wiki:
_________________________________________________________________
Chief Scientist
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444
_________________________________________________________________
|