To: | "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | Ken Ewell <mitioke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@xxxxxx>, "Paul J. Werbos" <pwerbos@xxxxxxx>, "T. Adi" <rnd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
From: | "psp" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:39:53 -0700 |
Message-id: | <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGCEOGGNAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
As Gary's
communcaiton had issues in it that are of interest to me, I have repeated his
note at:
I
suggest that the reconcilation of intrepretation differences is the key to
merging ontology, or even merely to have some level of interopreability between
something like web services.
Many
of the advances that have been made, such as ONTOCLEAN analysis
are true advances.
My
point of view is that human aggregation of memory and anticipation is invovled
in human intrepretation. The word "intrepretation" is grounded in what
occurs when human make intrepretations. The interpretation is, in the
final instance, in real time... though depending on (what I term as )
categorical collapses involved in the formation and use of human language.
This
point of view has lead me to develop a theory of mental event formation that
involves an aggreagtion of parts into a whole that has some type of coherence
(inherited from the electromagnetic, or more comletely a
electromagnetic/quantum/metabolic, coherence in the physcial support of
mental event formation). This does not have to be regarded as
esoteric, it is just the neuroscience that has been developed over the past few
decades.
I do
not have to be right about everything, and the details are expressed (with
references to other works) at
The
point of raising this point of view at this time has to do with the problem of
ontology management when the ontology is not layered, or
stratified.
John
Sowa has a theory of semantic primatives and thus I would expect that this
notion of stratification is familar to him.
I have
had my share of formalism, and love many aspects of pure mathematics. But
the formalisms are not "stratified", except Quasi Axiomatic Theory
so the
issue of parts to whole are not addressed as a necessary part of the act of
interpretation.
(I
hope someone will point out here that I missed something.)
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources, Gary Berg-Cross |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources, Cassidy, Patrick J. |
Previous by Thread: | [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources, Gary Berg-Cross |
Next by Thread: | [ontac-forum] Supporting the FEA-RMO and modular ontology: Was Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources, Gary Berg-Cross |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |