At 07:38 PM 11/19/2005, you wrote: (01)
>
>
>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>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>http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~akumar/JAIS.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>and elsewhere are available in the ISO 15926 set of concepts.
> (02)
I hope so. It would be sad if ISO did not recognize the distinction
between continuants and occurrents. (03)
>
>
>(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?
>
>
>
We were concerned, there, with contributions to ontology for
bioinformatics purposes. (04)
> *This introduces the notion of
> <http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/enumeration/gFfoundations.htm>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). (05)
I am not sure about 'affinity' and 'path of least resistance'. Do you
have definitions for these terms. It is not clear to me that
'intention' is a term that should belong to a top-level ontology;
does it not belong rather to the level of psychology? In any case an
intention would be an instance of the type: dependent continuant, in BFO terms. (06)
As to affordances, environment, and the like (entities dear to my
heart as a stout Aristotelo-Gibsonian) see: (07)
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/Functions_Smith.html
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bio/niche-smith.htm (08)
>
>
>Or did I miss this? Linguists call this function/structure
>degeneracy "double articulation"
>
>
>
><http://www.ontologystream.com/aSLIP/files/stratification.htm>http://www.ontologystream.com/aSLIP/files/stratification.htm
>
>
>
>The work at:
>
>
>
><http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html>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?" (09)
Our job, surely, is to move beyond the domain of what can be loosely held.
BS (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|