[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jerry.Floersch@xxxxxxxx, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@xxxxxx>, "Paul J. Werbos" <pwerbos@xxxxxxx>, "T. Adi" <rnd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "psp" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:15:59 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGEEABGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Barry said:    (01)

<quote>    (02)

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.    (03)

As to affordances, environment, and the like (entities dear to my
heart as a stout Aristotelo-Gibsonian) see:    (04)

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bio/niche-smith.htm    (05)

<end quote>    (06)

thank you Barry for the responses.  I am trying to provide a type of history
of discussions....  for those who might wish to look into the question of
"what is occuring with "ontologies"".    (07)

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/211.htm    (08)

I also post "edited posts" in my own "web log" because I find the
intersparing of text hard to follow in eforums.    (09)

Regarding Gibson's use of the word "affordance"..
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/211.htm#_(Note_from_Paul    (010)

(Note from Paul Prueitt:
ah, I would have only used the term "affordance" as Gibson used it.  It is
noteworthy to note that Karl Pribram and I have discussed Gibson's notion of
affordance and Karl has been very insistent that Gibson refused to find the
notion of internal affordance from the living system that is intention.  He
feels that this distinction between how Pribram sees internal and external
affordances as being quite different in many respects.  "Affinity" (for
specific action) and "path of least resistant" (as in Newtonian systems)
would not be "technical terms by my use of language in a common way to get
at the meaning I attribute to "affordance" (as used by myself, as a type of
"merge" of the use by Gibson and Pribram.)
<end Note>    (011)

Tom Adi and John Sowa and I would all, i feel, appreciate the subsumption of
the term "intentionality" within the cell :  dependent continuant...  where
this cell is formed as a cross product of a set of elementary "primes".  The
subsumption would, however, be "loose".  Developing a crisp ontology about
intention is part of what is required if the OASIS notion of "intention"    (012)

Important aspects in the (Nov 15th) OASIS draft,    (013)

{ visibility, interaction, effect }
lead to framework elements
{ capability, service, service description }
{ exchange, execution context, policy }    (014)

require an ontology of "intention".  What is the intention behind the
request for service?  The presence of the framework cell "dependant
continuant" should allow one to instrument (create a program to provide
interoperability) for the fulfillment of a web service request given the
need to resolve ambiguity created by ontology category and response
degeneracy in the use of words.    (015)

Do you approach the development of ontological elements using a framework of
this type?  This "generalFramework theory" is "all" that I am advocating
with this theory on stratified ontology, i.e. that an ontology of atomic
elements that compose to any "thing" can be found (at least within the
context of a field of study - like chemistry).    (016)

Goggle "stratified ontology"
http://www.hfr.org.uk/ternality-papers/whatgained-ab.htm  (D. K. Steward's
and others....  but somehow the concept is generally treated in a confused
again my position is at
http://www.ontologystream.com/aSLIP/files/stratification.htm    (017)

Adi, Sowa and perhaps a few other (Ballard, some in the former Soviet Union)
have developed sets of primes that are possible universal event atoms... but
somehow the problem of universal sematnic primes remains open.  (right?)    (018)

***    (019)

you said    (020)

"Our job, surely, is to move beyond the domain of what can be loosely held."    (021)

and I do not find this correct, as I feel that (and John expressed something
about this a little bit ago) Wittgenstein in his later years was right
regarding "language as being a game of using words to point at reality"    (022)

By loosely held I would mean a semiotics system that allows people to point
at semantics.    (023)

Is this similar to how you feel?    (024)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (025)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>