Danny, (01)
One problem maybe, as you recognize yourself: ''I'm neither a philosopher
nor logician" nor an ontologist, but a very good coder, as i believe.
Another problem, more serious, any of the SW formal logical languages tells
about the ontological nature of its polar constructs: individual, class, and
property; their basic meanings, kinds, relationships, and instances, see
USECS, for example. So those langauges are good rather for killing the web
applications instead of building the killer apps. (02)
For more arguments, read my answer to Hans, artfully detecting one problem
after another. Take another question which he raised, now regarding
representation of weight and its values. And what kind of funny advice he is
getting: (03)
''Note well that the meaning of the "properties" minWeight and maxWeight are
very different from the property weight. The former two are, perhaps,
properties of the class whereas the latter one is a property of instances of
the class.'' </PPS>. (04)
As i wrote before: (05)
''But mostly important to tell the formal properties (attributes) from the
ontological properties, which are
generally classified as:
1. the property of being a substance (object), substantial properties;
2. the property of being a state (quantity or quality), quantitative and
qualitative properties;
3. the property of being a process (change, action, operation), dynamic,
functional, operational properties;
4. the property of being a relationship; relational properties per
se.''</ASHA> (06)
In the special case mentioned above, Hans ran into one of the basic kind of
property, Quantity, having two major divisions: continuous magnitude and
discontinuous multitude (discrete quantities), commensurable to the degree
of being measurable by numbers. Next, a real ontology language may indicate
that there are at least two modes of magnitudes: of geometry and of physics.
The physical quantities (or dimensions) cover space (length, breadth,
width), time, mass, weight, the dimensions of motion as velocity,
acceleration and momentum, as well as temperature, heat, entropy, and each
dimension is specified by its unit of measurement and measured by the
physical instruments, such as clocks, rulers, balances, etc., through
selected mathematical procedures. So, the gravitational force of weight here
is a dimension which measures the heaviness of objects (as 'body weight'),
having a lawful relationship to the mass of objects, with a specific range
of values for different physical objects [for the quantity fundamentals,
look up Wikipedia, Quantity]. (07)
Lesson, neither formal language can represent and reason about reality,
telling you the nature and fundamental kind of things, but the real world
ontology language, which must be on the top of any 'semantic web'
archirecture, unless you want to kill your applications. (08)
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
http://www.eis.com.cy (09)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <semantic-web@xxxxxx>; "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "adasal"
<adam.saltiel@xxxxxxxxx>; <brian.macklin@xxxxxxxxxx>;
<timbl+speaking@xxxxxx>; <colette.maloney@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of
RDFreification) (010)
On 4/3/06, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (011)
Simply put,
> we must understand which web (or architectural pillars) most fits the
> matter, the formal semantic web (i.e., the syntactic web, known as the SW
> layer cake) or the real semantic web, something like this version:
>
> <Real Semantic Web> ::= <Ontological Framework> < Logical Framework>
> <Semiotics> <the Web>
> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
> Ontologies> <EOL>
>
> <Logical Framework> ::= <FMF> | < ... > <EOL>
>
> <Semiotics> ::= <Pragmatics> <Semantics> <Syntax> <EOL>
> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
> <Communication>
> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL>
>
> <Semantics> ::= <Signs, Natural Language Expressions> <Meanings> <EOL>
>
> <Syntax> ::= <Rules> <OWL Ontology> <RDF Schema> <RDF M&S> < RDF>
> <XML/SGML>
> <Namespaces> <EOL>
> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols, HTTP>
> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL> (012)
I'm neither a philosopher nor logician, so forgive me if sounds naive:
how does the above "grammar" conflict with what (if I understand
correctly) you are calling the "syntactic web" - i.e. the Semantic Web
of the W3C initiative? (013)
Ok, there are certainly differences, like here: (014)
> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
> Ontologies> <EOL> (015)
The RDF/OWL view doesn't really make a distinction between Upper Level
Ontologies and Domain Ontologies, but it has been demonstrated that
ULOs can be expressed in RDF/OWL. (016)
Don't confound Content with Form. (017)
...here: (018)
> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
> <Communication>
> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL> (019)
and here: (020)
> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols, HTTP>
> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL> (021)
- only half of each of these are explicit in the layer cake, the rest
(I would suggest) being implicit parts of the system, e.g. the
Semantic Web being an extension of the current Web, the current Web
includes HTTP hence the SW includes HTTP. Both feature Users, Agents
etc. (022)
So it looks to me like your "real semantic web" is the same as the
W3C's Semantic Web, but for a few undocumented features in the latter.
Where's the problem? (023)
Cheers,
Danny. (024)
-- (025)
http://dannyayers.com (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
|