Roy, (01)
We feel that your appraoch is very consistant with approaches being defined
by OASIS... and others. We must focus on what specially the common and
proper appraoch is, given that we are where we are in history. (I look at
John, if we are careful we may be able to do something here that has not
been done before..?) (02)
Cory's note (below) that we should not make it difficult to RE-attach logics
(of what ever form) is THE KEY, in my opinon also, to getting John Sowa's
Unified Framework in place . (03)
is this how you see it , John? (04)
If so, then I feel that the group should focus on how this might be done.
Say, in how some subset of the SUMO concepts might be separated from the
notion of logic or reasoning. Creating a controlled vocabulary and a simple
graph is what I have suggested... the result would be the set of syntagmatic
triples (05)
{ < a(i), r, a(j) > } (06)
where the triple is oriented to specifying the relationship between two or
more concepts and the set of concepts is enumerated as (07)
{ a(q) | q is an simple counting or ordering index } (08)
Note that the notion of a three layer database architecture was to
completely separate the data from the logic, and the presentation is then
also completely separated..... I know that many here knows this history..
n-tier stuff. etc.... but the argument (09)
that ontologists should separate the logic
from the ontology concepts (010)
seems to parallel that n-tier history in the database world. Cory is
stating the obvious, very well, in pointing out that the separation should
not undo anyone's work. John makes the same observation about the need to
not undo anyone's work. (011)
We need a few people who really understand the issues to step in here... (012)
and we need the common set of SUMO concepts (with some minimal set of
properties - like what is being discussed by Geoff and I) (013)
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/292.htm
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/293.htm (014)
Paul Prueitt (015)
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Roebuck [mailto:Roy.Roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:03 PM
To: Cory Casanave; Paul S Prueitt; Rex Brooks; John F. Sowa; Cory
Casanave; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Cc: Ralph Hodgson; Paul J. Werbos; Lars Marius Garshol; Gary Berg-Cross;
Dick Ballard; Dbedford
Subject: RE: how to model context (016)
It seems once again time to re-re-re-introduce the capabilities offered
by the "general ontology" approach I've described before in the ontac-g
forum. Cory's second paragraph is a good summarization of what I've
claimed that the GO provides. (017)
Roy (018)
-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:44 PM
To: 'Paul S Prueitt'; 'Rex Brooks'; 'John F. Sowa'; 'Cory Casanave'
Cc: Roy Roebuck; 'Ralph Hodgson'; 'Paul J. Werbos'; 'Lars Marius
Garshol'; 'Gary Berg-Cross'; 'Dick Ballard'; 'Dbedford'
Subject: RE: how to model context (019)
Paul,
Sure - we can and should keep it simple and we don't necessarily need
logical proofs at this time, but I would also like to make sure we don't
naively make it more difficult than it would need to be to utilize
formal
methods in the future. John-S's paper suggests this should not be a
problem. (020)
The basic ideas of context, as I understand them, are quite simple. It
provides a way to establish those statements that apply in a situation
based
on a categorization of those statements and situations by context. It
is
very easy to see how a procedural or logical formulization could select
the
appropriate statements for a given set of context. This provides
tremendous
value in the (realistic) situation of overlapping communities, domains,
formalisms and topics. It allows each to exist "in the same space" but
segregated by context. (021)
John as suggested "modules", but this sounds very one-dimensional to me,
where context should be multi-dimensional. But perhaps this is just a
difference in terminology since John's paper provides for
multi-dimensional
context. That said, even "modules" would help with large-grain
distinctions
such as "3D" and "4D". (022)
-Cory (023)
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S Prueitt [mailto:psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 1:49 PM
To: Rex Brooks; John F. Sowa; Cory Casanave
Cc: Roy Roebuck; Ralph Hodgson; Paul J. Werbos; Lars Marius Garshol;
Gary
Berg-Cross; Dick Ballard; Dbedford
Subject: how to model context (024)
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/284.htm (025)
short note about cory's comment (026)
"While I do have some ideas about how to model context, I am not sure
how to
fit it into the formal theories (Breaking each context into an ontology
doesn't seem to work as it is too structured). Category theory (Which I
don't fully understand) seem to start to give us a way to talk about the
relationships between context. (027)
But, I'm not sure we even need that complexity at this point if we can
create our set of concepts within a contextual framework, it becomes a
separate problem to figure out how to deal with those statements with
various formal systems." (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
|