ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [SPAM] Re: OntologyFrameworkDraftStatementfortheOn

To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:30:13 +0600
Message-id: <119578209.20070423183013@xxxxxx>
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)

  23  2007 ., 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)



-- 
 ,
 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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>