ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2015 Theme

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:07:21 -0700
Message-id: <5786B428-BAEB-42D9-B3E6-894DEC9A8D94@xxxxxxxxx>
An ontology of Does would encourage attention to this facet of a system. For 
example, lots of confusion currently exists regarding function, behavior, 
capability (to, for, of) output and effect (on context). More formally, an 
ontology containing the Boolean operators and relationships would be as useful 
as one containing plain and opaque arrowheads, diamonds, etc. 
Overall an ontology of the Does things would encourage more careful usage of 
class vs. type.
Make sense?    (01)

On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:06 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (02)

> On 11/7/2014 11:31 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
>> It may be useful to note that the shift in focus is from what
>> a system IS to what a system DOES.  Net-centric emphasized
>> the happenings among the things.
> 
> I agree that some shift -- any shift -- away from "IS" would be useful.
> The word 'ontology', by itself, just means the study of existence.
> Formal ontology is just the use of formal notations and methods
> for doing that study.  Unless you have some other goal, that doesn't
> give you much guidance.
> 
> In addition to asking "What is it?", you can get somewhat more
> guidance if you then ask "What does it do?"
> 
> But I'd also like to cite the full line from Michael G's note:
>> Internet of Everything: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies
> 
> That subtitle helps to give a bit more guidance.  But I'd also like
> to ask an embarrassing question:  In the initial analysis stage,
> does formal ontology give us any more help or guidance than the
> old 20th-century methods of systems analysis?
> 
> There was a huge amount of work on structured systems analysis.
> Some notations and methods used logic, and others were more informal.
> And some informal systems, such as UML, were later formalized.
> 
> What does ontology add?
> 
> 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/OntologySummit2015/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015  
> Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ 
>     (03)


_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2015/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015  
Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/     (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>