-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Ewell [mailto:mitioke@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:59 PM
To: psp
Cc: ONTAC-WG General Discussion; Tim Berners-Lee; T. Adi; Paul J.
Werbos; John F. Sowa; Jerry.Floersch@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO (01)
Hello Paul and everyone. (02)
Intention and entailment both play significant roles in interpretation
of a state of affairs. These may be psychosemantic but If we are to have
something called "semantics" in computing, it only seems natural that
those semantics should have something to say about the psychosemantics
of intention (human intentions or goals) and entailment (expansive yet
coherent possibilities). (03)
Barry brings up a good point in the beginning, the introduction of Basic
Formal Ontology for Bioinformatics, with his co-writers. I think the
primary point is glossed over very much. I know that I have to struggle
with it, whenever I speak about ontology in an IT environment. (04)
Barry cites Gruber and writes that "Two senses of ‘ontology’ can be
distinguished in the current literature. First is the sense favored by
information scientists, who view ontologies as software implementations
designed to capture in some formal way the consensus conceptualization
shared by those
working on information systems or databases in a given domain. [Gruber
1993]" and "Second is
the sense favored by philosophers, who regard ontologies as theories of
different types of
entities (objects, processes, relations, functions) [Smith 2003]." (05)
I for one am thankful that there are practionters like Barry Smith who
write clearly about the matter. It is a good example of rampant
neologism in the information industry in my humble opinion, nonetheless,
it is a significant factor. (06)
When Paul speaks of Ontology, he, like me and a few others, mean,
ontology, in the philosophical sense. We, few, are searching for ways to
realize this philosophical sense of ontology through the use of
mathematics and computer science, and to bring to computers the capacity
to compute with words. You may correct me if I am wrong to include you,
Paul. So in essence, when Paul rails against the W3C and logical
inference, the DP guys haven't a clue what he is on about. Someday the
industry will change and engage the philosophical side to things, else
the semantic web, as we know it today, will become irrelevant. (07)
I believe it is possible to compute with words and natural language. But
it will not happen until there is a uniform and accepted "upper" or
"base" ontology for computers. Just as computers did not gain widespread
application until there was a uniform code of information interchange,
there is no chance for "knowledge" computing until these issues about
ontology and human knowledge are settled. (08)
Cheers,
-Ken Ewell (09)
psp wrote: (010)
>Barry said:
>
><quote>
>
>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.
>
>As to affordances, environment, and the like (entities dear to my
>heart as a stout Aristotelo-Gibsonian) see:
>
>http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/Functions_Smith.html
>http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bio/niche-smith.htm
>
><end quote>
>
>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"".
>
>http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/211.htm
>
>I also post "edited posts" in my own "web log" because I find the
>intersparing of text hard to follow in eforums.
>
>
>
>
>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>
>
>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". 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.
>
>
>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).
>
>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?)
>
>
>
>***
>
>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"
>
>By loosely held I would mean a semiotics system that allows people to point
>at semantics.
>
>
>Is this similar to how you feel?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|