Leonid,
Thanks for your reference: The Cybernetics of Upper Ontology: a
Protolanguage for the Metalanguage stack''. Glancing at the content, I found
the following:
''Whilst the Categories, relationships and rules of applicability to a
domain are not yet clearly identified in this work it is suggested the VSM
process model and the Interactions of Actors (IA) process/product model, at
least, may be helpful in selecting desirable characteristics for an Upper
Ontolgy.'' From a cybernetic perspective, it makes a good stuff.
There are many ''Existing Upper Ontologies'', and might be even more still
Non-Existent Upper Ontologies, somebody is brooding over it now. Bu what the
knowledge technology asks for is a single Global Ontology, embodied as a Web
Standard Ontology, meaningfully structuring (frameworking) all sorts of
upper ontologies, existing and possible. (01)
Azamat Abdoullaev (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leonid Ototsky" <leo@xxxxxx>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ontology Summit 2007 Forum" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [ontology-summit]
OntologyFrameworkDraftStatementfortheOntologySummit (03)
> 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.
>
> Leonid Ototsky- http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it
>
> Âû ïèñàëè 23 àïðåëÿ 2007 ã., 0:57:30:
>
>> John and all concerned,
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>> FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGY DEFINITIONS
>
>> · 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;
>
>> JS PROPOSAL:
>> Ontology is a theory concerning the kinds of entities, including abstract
>> entities, to be admitted to a language system, formal or
>> informal.
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>> Bottom Line:
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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).
>
>
>
>> Wish all a profitable and friutful meeting,
>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
>> EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems LTD
>
>> Cyprus, Russia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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/
>>>
>
>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
>
> --
> Ñ óâàæåíèåì,
> Leonid mailto:leo@xxxxxx
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (05)
|