ontac-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:57:21 +0100
Message-id: <6.2.3.4.2.20051119195019.03e0a2f0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>