[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "psp" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:12:16 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGEEAEGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
hum,    (01)

let me just read the previous message and make some comments.    (02)

Barry Smith:
There is visibility, interaction, effect in the world of drosophila,
for example. There they seem not to lead to service descriptions or policy.    (03)

Paul S Prueitt:
I am not sure how you feel about the OASIS draft (attached)
Reference Model for Service Oriented Architectures....    (04)

Barry Smith:
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.    (05)

Paul S Prueitt:
A stratified ontology (as I have suggested) should have templates or
specific types that assist the real time aggregation of atomic elements
(parts of things with variable meaning depending on circumstance/context)
into models of a specific situation/event.    (06)

Barry Smith:
I doubt that policy, or service description, are atomic elements. Do
you have a definition of 'atomic element'?    (07)

Paul S Prueitt:
The concept of a semantic primitive is not precise, but in some cases I
would suggest that semantic primitives can be aggregated into a model of an
event.  The model would then be in correspondence to the reality of the
event, and the concepts - the set of concepts involved might be called an
ontology, or better "an ontological model" of the event.    (08)

In my reading of C S Peirce, he felt that a concept was like a chemical
compound - it is formed from an aggregation of "atoms".  The key, in the
opinion of those who think about this like I do, in understanding this event
chemistry notion is to reflect on the real physical different between
quantum reality and chemical reality.    (09)

Barry Smith:
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.    (010)

Paul S Prueitt:
NCOR stands for the new National Center for Ontology Research, which I take
it you are one of the founders.    (011)

I do not feel that you are understanding my notion of "loosely held".    (012)

I know that there are many things that can be engineered, many "web
services" that can be treated in advance.  So this is not where the issue of
stratification comes up.  If there is no emergence there is no need to move
away from a purely Newtonian model.    (013)

The concept of "loosely held" might be better stated as
"underconstrained"... as in an emergent process involved in neurochemistry
might be underconstrained if it were not for the actually presence of
specific reactants in the environment of the process.    (014)

I have written about this for a decade....  but have to admit that not many
individuals follow what I have been saying.  Some do.    (015)

Attachment: wd-soa-rm-10.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

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    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>