>
>Regarding Gibson's use of the word "affordance"..
>http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/211.htm#_(Note_from_Paul
>
>(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> (01)
I agree with Gibson here. An affordance is that which affords
(allows, encourages, provides a setting for) action out there in the
world. An intention provides something like a presupposition for
action on the part of the acting subject. (02)
>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"
>
>Important aspects in the (Nov 15th) OASIS draft,
>
>{ visibility, interaction, effect }
>lead to framework elements
>{ capability, service, service description }
>and
>{ exchange, execution context, policy }
>
>require an ontology of "intention". (03)
There is visibility, interaction, effect in the world of drosophila,
for example. There they seem not to lead to service descriptions or policy. (04)
> 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. (05)
A top-level ontology is designed to create the possibility for
interoperability between many lower-level domain ontologies. It is
not designed to substitute for the latter. (06)
>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). (07)
I doubt that policy, or service description, are atomic elements. Do
you have a definition of 'atomic element'? (08)
>Goggle "stratified ontology"
>http://www.hfr.org.uk/ternality-papers/whatgained-ab.htm (D. K. Steward's
>work)
>and others.... but somehow the concept is generally treated in a confused
>way.
>again my position is at
>http://www.ontologystream.com/aSLIP/files/stratification.htm
>
>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?)
> (09)
There is more to the world than events (and sums of events).
Continuants are not events. They are the bearers of events (or
better: of occurrents in general). (010)
>***
>
>you said
>
>"Our job, surely, is to move beyond the domain of what can be loosely held."
>
>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" (011)
>By loosely held I would mean a semiotics system that allows people to point
>at semantics.
>
>
>Is this similar to how you feel?
> (012)
Not at all. At some point physics, biology, chemistry, etc. needed to
move beyond the point where games with loose rules that could be
played with little effort to find the truth. It is the thesis behind
the foundation of NCOR that ontology has reached that point.
BS (013)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|