Azamat,
Suppose it will be interesting for you to look at the list of Existing Upper
Ontologies
on the ONTOLOG website -
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG/PointerPage
A reference to the VSM of Stafford Beer is included too under the #10. (01)
Leonid Ototsky- http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it (02)
Âû ïèñàëè 23 àïðåëÿ 2007 ã., 0:57:30: (03)
> John and all concerned, (04)
> Below is a number of Computing Ontology definitions used in the
> ontology-related communities and a set of dictionary definitions of
> Fundamental Ontology, which might be good to keep in our minds while seeking
> for a reasonable consensus. (05)
> IT/CS ONTOLOGIES DEFINITIONS:
> · a set of generic or philosophical concepts, axioms, and
> relationships for domain ontologies;
> · a taxonomy of world terms/categories comprising definitions,
> hierarchical relations, and formal axioms;
> · a set of definitions of classes and their relations, as well as
> individuals and their properties;
> · a catalog of the types of things (representing the predicates,
> word senses, concept and relation types of some formal language) organized
> by the class-subclass taxonomical relation; metadata schemas with
> machine processable semantics;
> · content theories about the kinds of objects, their properties and
> relationships possible in a certain knowledge field;
> · the total of a taxonomy and a set of inference rules or a
> document (or file) formally defining the relations among terms
> · the study of semantic values of natural and formal languages and
> ontological commitments about the world (06)
> FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGY DEFINITIONS (07)
> · the science (account) of entity (or being) in general;
> · the knowledge of the most general structures of reality;
> · the theory of the kinds and structures of things in every domain
> of reality;
> · the study of entity types and relations;
> · the most general theory concerning reality, being, or existence;
> · a collection of absolute assumptions;
> · the study of change in the world;
> · the science of all possible worlds and everything conceivable; (08)
> JS PROPOSAL:
> Ontology is a theory concerning the kinds of entities, including abstract
> entities, to be admitted to a language system, formal or
> informal. (09)
> AA PROPOSAL:
> Computing ontology is a formal representation of reality (or the kinds of
> the world entities)
> to formulate computable models, causal algorithms, and reasoning strategies
> about the world. (010)
> Bottom Line: (011)
> 1. Ontology is a general account of reality, its entities and relationships,
> concerning with all the major kinds of things making up the structure of the
> world, reality, universe, or existence. (012)
> 2. As an IT/CS ontology, it is about how the world and its domains can be
> mapped to the coded representations and symbolic structures in machines. (013)
> 3. In computing applications and knowledge technology, ontology forms the
> world representation and reasoning semantic framework for knowledge
> technology: Internet-based software tools, artificial cognitive systems, and
> intelligent agents. The computing ontology is the advanced knowledge tools
> for reality-centric organization of knowledge (information or data) and for
> providing the general mechanisms of reasoning over data (strategic rules). (014)
> Wish all a profitable and friutful meeting, (015)
> Azamat Abdoullaev (016)
> EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems LTD (017)
> Cyprus, Russia (018)
> Fundamental ----- Original Message ----- From: "John F. Sowa"
> <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>To: "Ontology Summit 2007 Forum"
> <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 6:16
> PMSubject: Re:
> [ontology-summit]OntologyFrameworkDraftStatementfortheOntologySummit> Mike,
> Bill, Chris, Steve, Leo, and Barry,> > MU> These two word senses [from the
> M-W dictionary] pretty> > much do cover the difference between what I was
calling>> > philosophical ontology, vs. IT/CS ontologies.> > That should not
> be surprising, because every IT/CS ontology> depends on some prior
> *philosophical* analysis -- unfortunately,> it's sometimes rather bad
philosophy.>> > BA> The Merriam-Webster definition is, IMHO, pretty good,
except>> > for the bit about "specifically abstract entities" and the focus>
>> on language. The latter is more forgivable since it is, after all,> >
> systems grounded in more-or-less formal language that we're talking> >
> about. The former seems confused - why the focus on "specifically> > the
> kinds of abstract entities" while admitting (presumably)> > non-abstract
entities.>> > I agree that the word 'specifically' is confusing. It was
actually>> written "specif.", which is a common abbreviation in that
dictionary>> for a more specific sense that follows. That phrase could be
changed>> to "including abstract entities".> > Note that the word 'language'
> was used in the phrase "language systems".> That definition from 1971 was
> written by a philosopher (M-W does use> editors who are experts in the
> subject matter) who was well aware of> the work on formal languages in the
> first-half of the 20th century.> To clarify that point, we could add the
> phrase "formal and informal"> at the end.> > With those two revisions,
> definition 2 becomes:> > 2. a theory concerning the kinds of entities,
including abstract>> entities, to be
including abstract>> admitted to a language system,
formal or>> informal.> > The language system, for example, could be
> Common Logic and all its> dialects. The entities "admitted" to that system
would be everything>> in the domain of
would be everything>> quantification. The theory would be
all the axioms>> that that refer to those entities.>
all the axioms>> > CP> 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.> >
quite a few>> Those "contortions" are
> handled very precisely by model theory,> If anybody asks "Which two do you
> mean?" The answer is simple:> "Any two -- your choice."> > CP> 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.>> > I agree that a few words would be useful, and I suggest some>
> words in my response to Leo (at the end of this note).> > SN> As for me, I
> doubt that there's anything invariant about> > the soup, and I suspect that
> whatever may appear to be> > invariant cannot be relied upon to remain so.>
>> I was using the word 'invariant' in the sense of mathematics,> physics,
> and computer science: a relationship (described by> some mathematical or
> logical expression) that remains unchanged> under some transformation.> > In
> physics, for example, there can be constant, even chaotic,> motion, but the
> focus of the subject is on what remains invariant> under various
> transformations. Examples include things like mass,> energy, momentum,
> angular momentum, etc.> > When we're talking about knowledge soup, the
invariants would be>> patterns that remain
invariants would be>> constant under various kinds of
translations>> from one language to another. (And by the way, different
invariants>> may be associated with different kinds of transformations.)> >
LO>> "Theories", they think they understand because they've heard> > the word
> as referring to scientific theories, but they don't> > really know what a
theory is.>> >> > So I start off using "concept" and tell them
simultaneously>> > that it is a placeholder for the
simultaneously>> thing in the world, etc.>
>> Then I build up to theories, in fact logical theories.> > I think you can
> say something short and understandable without> raising dubious or at least
> debatable issues about concepts, etc.> At the end of this note is my
suggestion.>> > BS> Am I right in thinking that you
suggestion.>> want a 3-level theory,
here,>> > with concepts serving as intermediaries between terms and> >
> entities? If so, why is this intermediary level necessary?> > How does it
> help? How, in particular, does it help pedagogically,> > given that
> (demonstrably) people find the term 'concept' so> > difficult to
understand?>> > I agree that we should not raise any of
understand?>> those issues in the>
> summary. I just checked the M-W and Longman's dictionaries for> a
> definition of 'concept'. M-W gave a long list of options,> and Longman's
> didn't attempt to define the word. Following is> their entry:> > "a
> general idea, thought, or understanding."> > The lexicographers who wrote
> that definition had no desire to> enter the tar pit.> > Following is a
> suggested definition of the two senses of the> word 'ontology' and two
> sentences of explanation. The best> way to clarify that definition is to
give examples.>> > John>
> ________________________________________________________________> > [In the
> following definition, the first sense is taken from> the _Longman Dictionary
> of Contemporary English_ and the second> from M-W, as modified above in
> response to Bill Andersen.]> > The word 'ontology' is used in two senses:> >
> 1. The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of> existence and
> the relations between things.> > 2. A theory concerning the kinds of
entities, including>> abstract entities, to
entities, including>> be admitted to a language
system,>> formal or informal.> > In computer systems, the language can be
> any version of logic,> such as Common Logic, RDF, OWL, or many others. A
theory is>> a collection of statements in some version of logic that is> used
> to characterize the entities and relations of some domain.> Tom and Azamat,
> I realize that a lot of hard work has gone into writing that
> document, but some of it raises more questions than it can
> answer. In particular, words like 'conceptualization' and
> 'representation' are especially frustrating, because they
> are used in conflicting ways that create more confusion
> than enlightenment.
TG>> The draft document is written as a logical walk down
>> a set of distinctions, so that we could discuss the source
>> of disagreements and clearly identify the point of departure.
> That opening section was not clear at all. And as I said,
> there is no "point of departure" between philosophy and
> computer science when it comes to ontology.
TG>> To say there is no difference between what a professor
>> of Aristotelian ontology means by ontology and what a
>> bioinformatics computer scientist managing a gene database
>> means is absurd.
> No. If they both have a good background in logic, they
> would be in complete agreement about the definition of
> ontology and its application to bioinfomatics.
> Aristotle, by the way, was a pioneer in both formal logic
> *and* biology. As a result of applying his methods of
> analysis, he was the first to recognize that a sponge is
> an animal, not a plant. Among the experiments that he and
> his students carried out was the study of how an embryo
> develops: they started with 30 chicken eggs and broke
> open one egg each day to examine the embryo. Biologists
> recognize that as one of the first and best illustrations
> of good experimental procedure.
TG>> There is a new word sense for ontology...
> No. In both philosophy and computer science, there are two
> ways of using the word 'ontology'. I suggest the following
> two definitions, which apply equally well to both fields:
> Ontology: The analysis and classification of what exists.
> An ontology: The result of an ontological analysis of some
> domain, presented as a formal description and classification
> of the types of entities and relations in that domain.
> These definitions apply to Aristotle's work and to "a
> bioinformatics computer scientist managing a gene database."
AA>> I suggest to find a way and consider a kind of definition
>> not isolating computing ontology from the mainstream as
>> something odd and extraordinary, out of the blue sky. It is
>> plain that there are fundamental ontology, a universal account
>> of reality, and applied ontologies, where the computing
>> ontology belongs in.
> I agree.
AA>> Computing ontology is a formal representation of reality
>> and its domains, levels, and complex entities and is used to
>> formulate computable models, causal algorithms, and reasoning
>> strategies about the world, its parts and aspects.
> The last two lines of this definition apply "an ontology" as
> defined above to computer systems. Therefore, I believe that
> we should state a general definition (as above) and add a few
> lines such as these to adapt it computer science.
John >> _________________________________________________________________
>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>> Subscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Community Files:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
>> Community Wiki:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>> (019)
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (020)
--
Ñ óâàæåíèåì,
Leonid mailto:leo@xxxxxx (021)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (022)
|