On 7/29/2013 4:33 AM, Mike Bennett wrote:
> a classification scheme for subjects and a classification scheme
> for classes of "Thing", are two separate matters! I hope we are
> able to keep this in mind. (01)
I agree. In fact, there is nothing special about ontologies.
They're just one more kind of metadata. And there is nothing
special about metadata. They're just signs of signs. (02)
There's a name for that: Semiotics. (03)
The first ontology that classified signs and signs of signs was
the Scholastic distinction between *first intentions* (which are
signs that refer to things in the world) and *second intentions*
(which refer to signs). (04)
For a very brief summary of those issues see slides 87 to 90
of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/kdptut.pdf . (05)
The largest ontology that dealt with such issues was by John Wilkins,
who used the term 'transcendental' for categories of signs. For a
summary of Wilkins' ontology, see slides 91 to 93. (06)
For an updated version of Wilkins' top level with the category
Transcendental replaced by Signs, see slides 100 to 103. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (09)
|