Leo,
Thanks for the reference.
In my email I was really making a plea for
a slightly different strategy in framing the draft statement (I think Bill and
Barry, among others, are making a similar plea).
I think if you start with the things in
the world (your original phrase, and I like it – and I know this smacks
of realism and so offends some people – but typically not practioners)
then produce a model/map of these you have a world-to-(engineering)model way of
looking at things driving your notion of ontology (and ontology model).
This seems to me to accord with
philosophic practice – and also leave behind all the worries about
concept language, mentioned by Bill and others. I think the trade-off
worthwhile. It also accords with way business system modelling practioners seem
to work - hence attractive to me. It is also then extremely easy to explain to
non-ontology people why ontology helps with inter-operability.
So, I would like to recommend the people drafting
the statement consider whether this is a good strategy.
Your comment on illocutionary force raises
(for me) another issue.
It seems to when you examine legacy
systems, after you have separated out the ontology, your have a couple of other
layers. One is the epistemology – explaining the way the system knows the
world. The other is the purpose of the system, how it works, here I have found
illocutionary force comes into its own.
It seems to me that some of the CS
ontology work goes from world to system without separating out these strands
(business system people talk about separation of concerns). Again I think the
draft statement should recognise these, as in a business system of any size
they cannot be ignored. I suppose this assumes that the framework is intended
to deal with business systems as well as web pages.
So my question is, should we distinguish
between ontology,, epistemology and system (illocutionary) models in the draft
framework?
Regards,
Chris
From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: 22 April 2007 16:14
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re:
[ontology-summit]OntologyFrameworkDraftStatementfortheOntologySummit
Chris,
Of course what I wrote was a vast
over-simplification. Formal (or even informal) semantics-pragmatics is actually
a continuum, with other kinds of speech acts than declarations (declarative
sentences) mostly on the pragmatics side, but of course having also to do with
semantics.
And there definitely are many issues:
interpretations of linguistic forms concerning aggregations, group/collective
and accumulative readings, distributed predicates, etc. In fact, for the case
you cite you might look at Manfred Krifka's recent work, e.g., http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/MoreThanTwo.pdf
where he talks about some of the notions as illocutionary operators, i.e., that
natural language quantification is much richer than generalized quantifier
theory can describe.
Indeed, conceptual models (UML or
object-oriented models exemplify the paradigm) and so-called "logical
models" ala databases aren't too concerned about real world reference
in the same way; they tolerate a lot of system and database kinds of notions.
Some very formal ontology engineers will tolerate so-called "conceptual
profligacy" (no, let's not bog down in more arguments about
"concept"), i.e., notions that may not be precisely about things in
the world but instead might just be useful.
_____________________________________________
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
From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:42
AM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2007 Forum'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]OntologyFrameworkDraftStatementfortheOntologySummit
Leo,
I think something is being missed here.
Leo said:
“Insofar as we share a common notion of the things in the world, we
do have a common semantics, i.e., via a common reference.”
It seems to me that some attempts at
models (languages, concepts, etc.) try to map the “things in the world”
directly via reference – others do not.
Language is something where this is not
the case – the majority of language use’s goal is not about describing
the world, but persuading, cajoling, etc. – I recall a particularly good
description of this in George Lakoff’s Women, Fire, etc.
Even when it is about describing a
situation – it is not always clear how reference works. David Armstrong
gives as an example the statement that ‘there are at least two people in
the room” – when there are a lot more. What does the statement
refer to (e.g. which two people?) – you have to go through quite a few
contortions to rescue reference.
To give a more practical example, in a
recent ontology mining exercise on an operational system, the code included the
notion of a node which was a point in space described by the traditional three
co-ordinates. The problem was that as the system needed to be distributed the
(representation of) the same node could (and did) appear a number of times.
This is a very simple example, of a common feature of currently implemented
systems, the requirements of system performance least to a downgrading of the
importance of maintaining a direct relationship with the “things in the world”
via reference and hence (legitimately) reference becomes indirect .
So what seems to me to characterise a
model of an ontology is a desire to map the “things in the world”
directly via reference – and that language, concepts, etc do not
necessarily share that desire.
I am not sure that this desire has been
made explicit in the current Ontology Framework Draft Statement for the
Ontology Summit – and I think it might usefully do so.
Regards,
Chris
From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Andersen
Sent: 21 April 2007 22:17
To: Ontology
Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
OntologyFrameworkDraftStatementfortheOntologySummit
Hi Leo..
This deserves a longer discussion, because it's a good answer.
However, in short, I think you're making my point, not refuting it. My
point was why use the term "concept" to describe that which we're
quantifying over (topic maps, thesauri, et al, are not exempt) in our
ontologies *unless* we're willing to go through something like the exercise you
have below? The point is that the things we're quantifying over are
(hopefully) not concepts at all but rather the things we wish to talk about.
We may also wish to talk about tree-concepts as well as trees, precisely as you
did below (BTW, thanks for previewing to anyone interested what such a theory
might look like). A second and more pressing problem is that, while
computer science ontology-talk blithely discards any kind of realism by the
extensive (and as Barry points out, slipshod) use of the term
"concept", there seems to be a hasty implicit willingness to at least
regard concepts as real. One finds a contradiction here -- concept talk
lends reality to at least one ontological category - the concept - or at least
accepts reliable epistemic access to such things. Why this and not have
any confidence in our epistemic access to trees and dogs. Concepts seem
much more difficult to get a handle on, especially if they're private.
Dogs and trees are public - we share our access to them.
On Apr 21, 2007, at 16:26 , Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
Bill,
Although I think concepts are internal
(call them instead ideas or semantic senses, if you wish), I think they
appropriately point to things in the world, so the shared semantics has two
aspects:sense and reference. The latter is the thing in the world; the
former is the placeholder for that, and indexed by our language constructs.
Insofar as we share a common notion of the things in the world, we do have a
common semantics, i.e., via a common reference. One might say in fact that the
degree to which our thoughts match or map to the things in the world is the
degree to which we have a common way of thinking about the things of the world.
And then, finally, the degree to which our terminology and compositions of our
terminology align with those common thoughts is the degree to which we can
communicate with reasonably shared semantics.
What I don't understand is how my term can
map directly to a thing in the world and bypass my thoughts.
Refer directly to a specific tree without
1) using language, 2) pointing, or 3) thinking about that tree. I'd say you can
probably do without (1) or (2) (e.g., most animals), but how can you do without
(3)?
Can the tree be physically in my head? If
you say that the term-reference relation is in my head, then I would say that
term-reference relation is a concept (yes, an entity, class, relation,
property, instance, logical operatory, if you will -- as a way of
characterizing the kinds of concepts), a reified representation in my
head, and that that term-reference relation in fact can dispense with the
term, since we think that animals can know the world without necessarily having
language. Is the tree in the head of my dog? I don't think so: I think the dog
has an idea about the tree.
I still think that one of the causes of
our dissonance is that we are talking about 1) ontology, 2) logic, and 3)
semantics, and not keeping these things straight. I would say that we build
engineering models (call them engineering ontologies) which try to represent
the real world. However, those engineering models consist of two items: 1)
labels and 2) the representation of the meaning of those labels where the
meaning is expressed as formal classes, entities, relations, properties,
instances, rules, etc., that are supposed to align with what we think is
the way the real world is and "means". Now, labels are terms, i.e.,
the names we give to these representations. As such they are elements of our
language, abstracted or idealized. We have other terms we use in ordinary communication
that index those labels. Both the terms and the labels are vocabulary; their
interpretations, i.e., the actual formal models (stand-ins or representations
for the real world things) they map to, and the mappings, are their
semantics. Because a logic itself is a language, we have another filegree
of potential dissonance.
I use "concept" not because I am
a conceptualist (I'm not), but because I think that that notion abstracts over
stuff like entity, class, property, relation, attribute, instance, rule, etc.
_____________________________________________
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
From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bill Andersen
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007
2:23 AM
To: Ontology
Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
OntologyFrameworkDraftStatementfortheOntology Summit
Hey Leo...
Your note hits precisely at the issue that I think plagues concept
talk.
(1) If concepts are private to bearers, then why pretend to talk about
"shared semantics", "shared meanings" and so on, as is
common in the literature on ontology in computer science? For this to work,
there would have to be something (anything!) by virtue of which such concepts
could be shared. There are, as you know, theories about how that may come
about (I'm thinking of Carnap's private language argument), but nobody's
talking about that in computer science ontology.
(2) If concepts are not private, then there must be some nexus that
supports the non-private component of them that is shared. Generally, we
of a realist bent take that to be *reality*. Barry's comment concerning
the bio-ontologist who thinks of their computational bio-ontology
representing not concepts, but biological reality, comes to mind. If
we still want concepts (say to talk about someone's personal concepts) some
form of conceptual realism can be employed to relate the two.
In either case, I don't think any useful work is done whatsoever by
calling the things denoted by linguistic terms in *computational* ontologies
"concepts" with no further comment. We humans (at least those
of us who are not concept theorists) seem to resort to to the use of the term
"concept" for the same reason that we call something we can't
remember the name of a "thingy" or "whatchamacallit" - in
this form it's a kind of forgivable intellectual laziness. That, or we're
*really* talking about concepts in which case we have lots of work to do.
Rather, wouldn't it be better - especially if one doesn't care about
(philosophically-motivated) ontology - simply to use the more neutral terms of
"property", "relation", and "object" that can be
taken to correspond to the denotation of relation- (unary and
greater-than-unary) and constant-terms in mathematical logic. Nicola
Guarino, and later with Chris Welty, went this direction. This relates to
Welty's comment of yesterday about there being nothing new in computer science
ontology -- it's almost as if computer scientists engaged in the "semantic
technology" field are afraid to use terms that might make their enterprise
seem less sexy and "semantic", so they stick with "concept"
On Apr 20, 2007, at 21:27 , Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
[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
From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Uschold, Michael F
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:01
PM
To: Ontology
Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
Ontology FrameworkDraftStatementfortheOntology Summit
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
From:
Bill Andersen [mailto:andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:58
PM
To: Ontology
Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
Ontology Framework DraftStatementfortheOntology Summit
Correction. Second sentence should read:
Are relations not "conceptual" in the way that
"concepts" are?
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?
On Apr 20, 2007, at 19:12 , Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
"A representation of the structure of concepts and the relations
between them, in a form that a computer can reason with."
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:08 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft
StatementfortheOntology Summit
But seriously, are we looking for a Gartner Group-style 4 word
statement to make it sound good, or do we want a formulation that
actually does mean something and that we can agree on?
always equate with clarity: if I have to choose to sacrifice one, it
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 20 April 2007 16:02
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement
"a
formal description of terms that represent concepts and
chosen subject matter of interest"
is too long, too much of a mouthful of too many words.
Its almost good enough... But an ontology is more than just about
"a
formal description of terms that represent concepts and
chosen subject matter of interest"
==========================
==========================
----------------------------------------------------
COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 3:08 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft
I agree: we've worked with the definition "a formal descriptions
of
terms and the relationships between them" [1] as being good
know what we talking about when we're talking about what
about...and "good enough" should be good enough.
[1] From 'OASIS Reference Model for Service-Oriented Architecture',
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 19 April 2007 20:23
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft
Surely after 15 years we can do better than "specification of a
conceptualization"? Isn't
it time we put that one to rest?
Here is our draft statement about the Ontology Framework.
you to consider and discuss this -- now and in next
We intend this to be an inclusive characterization of what an
is. Inclusive: meaning that we invite you to consider
your community is with respect to these dimensions. If you have
concerns or issues, restatements or elaborations, please
now and next week. This will shortly be posted on the
Tom Gruber, Michael Gruninger, Pat Hayes, Deborah McGuinness, Leo
_____________________________________________
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Dr. Christopher A. Welty
IBM Watson
+1.914.784.7055
19 Skyline Dr.
_________________________________________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date:
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
*************************************************
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
**************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
_________________________________________________________________
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
_________________________________________________________________
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
_________________________________________________________________
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.6/770 - Release Date: 20/04/2007 18:43
No virus
found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 21/04/2007 11:56
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 21/04/2007 11:56
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 21/04/2007 11:56
|