Johne' loose formulation of ''...one *very big* issue that hasn't been
''how do the concept and relation types in the ontology relate to the words
and phrases in natural languages.'' (01)
The correct formulation: ''how do the entity and relation types in the world
relate to the concepts and associations in the mind, to the coded
representations and structures in machines, to the words and sentences in
natural languages.'' (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Murray Altheim" <m.altheim@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable (04)
> I agree with you. That is why we have to focus on methods
> for finding "hubs" or "cores" and relating them to one another
> and to the more detailed problem-oriented special cases.
> That's the whole point of the lattice of theories: it's
> an infinite collection that lays out all possible hubs,
> cores, subsets, supersets, etc., together with all possible
> generalizations, specializations, and combinations of them.
> Since many people are overwhelmed by infinity, I take a step
> back and say that we will only put those theories that people
> have actually implemented and used into the metadata registry.
> But we will also include the links that show how those theories
> are related to one another. And those links are the same four
> operators that are used to relate the theories in the infinite
> lattice: contraction, expansion, revision, and analogy.
> > So, the pursuit of a "local hub", which is as "universal"
> > as we can make it, may have substantial benefit even if it
> > is not the one, true, cosmic and universal answer. We don't
> > need agreement outside of this community; we need success
> > at providing a compelling capability in a supportive community
> > ecosystem.
> Yes indeed. Once we accept that point, the major issues to be
> discussed are: how big is the core, how many hubs will there be,
> how are all these things related to one another, and most of all,
> how do they relate to legacy systems, which will coexist with
> the brave new world for many years, if not decades.
> The biggest battles arise when people want to put their own pet
> theories into the core. Murray Altheim, who has had a great deal
> of practical experience in these matters, listed the following
> five requirements for the core:
> > 1. a means of establishing [subject] identity
> > 2. a facet, or property relation
> > 3. the class-instance relation
> > 4. the superclass-subclass relation (which I later redefined
> > to be based on a mereological or collection basis, ala Cyc)
> > 5. a means of expressing context
> I would choose different words for those five things, and I'd
> be willing to add a few more. But I'd keep the core very small,
> much smaller than most people are asking for. I'd also recommend
> more than one hub and insist on systematic methods for relating
> hubs to one another and to the problem-oriented theories.
> And there's still one *very big* issue that hasn't been adequately
> addressed: how do the concept and relation types in the ontology
> relate to the words and phrases in natural languages.
> 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:
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/