ontac-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:31:50 -0400
Message-id: <9F771CF826DE9A42B548A08D90EDEA808BB93C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Yes, I agree with this, Barry. Thanks for making it very clear that we
are talking about 3 kinds of things.    (01)

1) the real thing (real world referent), 2) the symbolic representation
or stand-in for the real thing (sometimes we call that the concept),
and 3) ways of referring to (1) usually by way of using (2) and
indicating that by human language words and phrases.     (02)

I would use your three statements, and suggest we all do, since they
are much clearer than the above.    (03)

Leo     (04)

Ps. The "triangle of signification" is sometimes used to help elucidate
these relations [Ogden, C. K., and I.A. Richards. 1923. The Meaning of
Meaning. London: Kagen Paul; and adapted by various folks, including
me; and having antecedence back to Peirce, and perhaps further]. 
_____________________________________________ 
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     (05)


-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barry Smith
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:46 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems    (06)


>
Just a small extra precisification of what Leo has to say, which I 
hope he will accept:    (07)

Instead of:    (08)

>We have to make sure that we make distinctions precise in the
>ontologies we hope our systems, databases, and services will use. A
>real thing represented in an ontology will be 1) a real thing, or as
we
>say, a symbol that represents the real thing, since we deal with
>information objects that stand in for the real objects, and then 2)
>have various ways of referring to that thing, including its multiple
>names and its very many descriptions.    (09)

I would like:    (010)

We have to make sure that we make distinctions precise in the 
ontologies we hope our systems, databases, and services will use. In 
particular we have to distinguish between:    (011)

1) A real thing (process, event, ...) represented in an ontology.    (012)

2) Its representation in the ontology - a symbol that represents the 
real thing (since we are interested both in real objects and in the 
information objects that stand for them).    (013)

3)Various ways of referring to that thing, including its multiple 
names and its very many descriptions.    (014)

BS     (015)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG    (016)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (017)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>