Leo, (01)
Appreciating the effort you put in organizing this Summit, I have to make
this comment, just for the sake of truth. For several days, we've all read
many funny remarks about ontology, computing ontology, and semantics. But
the last one looks most amusing: ''Recall that the primary purpose of the
Ontology Summit is NOT TO DEFINE ONTOLOGY so much as it is to DEFINE A
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK...''. (02)
To reason on the fundamental subject without defining its primary meaning is
to get nowhere. In fact, we need to determine what 'ontology' signifies,
both denotes and connotes. Namely, to specify :
1. its denotation (reference, extension, content), the class of entities
that the construct of ontology refers to, 2. its connotation, a set of
relationships (properties, aspects, dimensions, attributes). I am afraid
your assumptions affected 'An Ontology Framework', missing not only the key
issue of meaning of ontology, but also its real dimensions. (03)
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems LTD
CYPRUS, RUSSIA (04)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ontology Summit 2007 Forum" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft
StatementfortheOntology Summit (05)
> Recall that the primary purpose of the Ontology Summit is NOT TO DEFINE
> ONTOLOGY so much as it is to DEFINE A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK by
> which artifacts that various communities develop can be compared. A
> typology for ontology, perhaps.
>
> The hope is that by defining a set of properties (dimensions), and
> considering values for the properties, I can describe my thesaurus in a
> way that can then be more easily compared with your logical theory and
> Mary's topic map model. In this multi-dimensional coordinate space,
> perhaps we can more clearly understand what we need to do to achieve
> semantic interoperability among our artifacts.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement
> fortheOntology Summit
>
> Somehow there is a funny side to this thread, self explanatory about
> the 'state of the art' of ontology.
>
> Amazingly, I follow the discussions among the authors/gurus whose work
> has introduced me to this domain, namely Tom, John Azamat and many
> others and I find myself in both disagreement and agreement with much
> of what is being said.
> Reality is paradodixal
>
> I see the problem that we are having as follows
>
> - ontology, like the reality that ontology models and represents, is
> not just one thing, altough it can be just one thing if that's what
> you need or want to talk about. So possibly all of the proposed
> interpretations/angles are true and acceptable, it's just a matter of
> chosing/defining the scope what definition we are referring to in any
> given part of our discourse, and provide some grounding/rationale for
> that choice so that we can be understood by others. We will never come
> up with one single exhaustive definition, and if we do, that is not
> likely to last for long or be pefect always for all instances.
>
> - 'Putting to rest' a definition may sound like we are killing it, but
> letting it evolve and grow into different directions means that we are
> building on it, I am sure that there are situations where
> 'specification of conceptualization' is still a suitable definition (I
> use it often), and situations where the reality that we are observing
> has outgrown the definition which needs to be expanded (I use other
> definitions and even make up my own ones when something new comes up)
> and if necessary changed altogether.
>
> nothing is ever created nor destroyed, everything is always
> transformed
>
> - Our real problem is the process. A 'statement was issued before the
> discussions were opened up and confrontation among different views and
> opinions were made public. it's great that we all have the opportunty
> to chip in, but this is now sounding like Tom and the others issued
> the 'official' view, and now the others have to argue to have these
> views changed. This is likely to cause conflict The fact is that we
> all have different perspectives, and this exercise is unprecedented
> We should make the process more inclusive at start, then each of us
> can ponder on the different views propose, and adopt/follow the most
> suitable constructs as they see fit, depending on what exercise is
> being undertaken
>
> - the wiki may be an answer. Let's post on the wiki all the questions
> and considerations that have led to such a statement to be formulated
> in such a way (I am sure the original authors have some reasons why
> they have come up with this), with the initital statement presented
> simply as one possible view. But there should be equal room for all
> other views, for us to define the 'reality of ontology today'
> Only a comprehensive resulting statement includng all possible/valid
> views (views that are true) can satisfy our collective requirement,
> and where necessary
> conflict can be acknowledged. I dont see anything wrong with that
>
>
> Fnally, it looks to me like the Summit should be aimed to discuss all
> of the above
> including a methodology to achieve 'inclusive' viewpoint
>
> personally, I acknolwledge reality for what is (other points of view
> simply exist, provided they are correct I must accept them) and that
> each of us should be able to adopttheir preferred definition without
> causing grief to others
> without assuming that their choice is the best or the only correct
> one, provided choices/assumptions are declared
>
>
> Paola Di Maio
> (Peter I ll send you my slides asap)
>
> -
>
> On 4/20/07, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT, MFU.ac.th
> --------------------------------------------
>
> "For as long as space and time endures
> may I too abide to dispel misery and ignorance"
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|