|
ISO 15926
is in fact a general purpose graphically mapped set of concepts. This can
be seen from:
http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html
Many of the qualities needed by the Basic Formal Ontology (as
discussed at:
http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~akumar/JAIS.pdf
and elsewhere are available in the ISO 15926 set of
concepts.
(by the way: the distinctions discussed in the JAIS pdf
file:
universal and particular
continuant and occurrent
dependant and independent
formal and material
are very
similar (*) to what I think of as Sowa's primitives. Why is
his work not referenced in the JAIS pdf
file?
*This introduces the notion of general
framework theory.)
The problem I see with the BFO (Basic Formal Ontology?s ?SPAN? and
?SNAP? sets of concepts) is that there is no function/structure distinction and
thus the observed degeneracy involved in almost all emergence of aggregated
structure (substructure) into wholes having properties that depend on the
environmental "set of affordances" There is no concept of
?affordance?, ?affinity?, ?path of least resistance? or ?intention?, and related
concepts (as required by biological realities such as emergence of function from
form).
Or did I miss this? Linguists call this function/structure
degeneracy "double articulation"
http://www.ontologystream.com/aSLIP/files/stratification.htm
The work at:
http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html
seems very complete and satisfactory. Why is this not everything one needs to
build loosely held ontology and to support web services? My question here
is "why has this not been enough to end the constant development of poorly
developed (RDF/OWL) Protege ontology?"
What are the limiting constraints on Protege in
particular?
Again, my claim is that a larger power has to step in to take
control of the standardization (for the purpose of avoiding the obvious)
processes (particularly by the W3C). This is why the White House has to be
the power...?
|