Kevin, (01)
It looks i have to answer to your suspicion of my standard ontology
religiosity and its inculcation upon the innocent minds of the ONTAC working
group.
Above all, i was gladly surpised to find out that the US government enjoys
such sophisticated and intelligent minds as yours, feeling now sad that the
Russian government is badly lacking such sort of officers. (02)
I share your concern about the absoluteness of top ontology. But the unified
ontology i promoting, unlike the pope's decree, is an open world context of
primary meanings, which could be challenged untill and unless its principal
classes and rules are verified as the only underlying standards of things by
heavy computing experimentation and simulation. (03)
I also share your concern about the metaphor, Knowledge Trinity, it is a bit
strong and generates irreleveant associations and may divert one from the
crux of the matter. (04)
And the point is, to create advanced knowledge machines, or ontological
semantic technology, it is necessary to cast away as inherently defective,
the formal semantic system of functional logic, or so-called 'formal
ontology', having little to do with the world, and designed according to the
formal language schema:
Formal Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (the SW languages, XML, RDF,
OWL) + axioms (mathematical or formal logical) + designation rules (the
semantic function from the set of language expressions into the collection
of constructs). (05)
Instead, we need to formulate the real semantic system of common ontology,
designed as scientific schema:
Real Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (natural languages) + axioms
(ontological, scientific, mathematical, formal logical) + designation rules
+ reference function (from constructs to real objects) + representation
function (from constructs to the state spaces of the world). (06)
Such a Real Semantic System embraces the particular semantic systems of
sciences, natural and social, having the correspondence (reification) rules
from constructs to real world entities, and thus it is mostly productive of
efficient real life applications in education, commerce, business, industry
and government. (07)
This must be done insistently, to stop not only confusing ontologies with
terminologies (what John highlighted) but also all sorts of academic
mystification and delusive and expensive promises like formal ontologies
meeting industry (which is nonsense), the formal semantic web (another
nonsense), etc. (08)
ASHA (09)
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics and Ontology (former What should be
inan upper-level ontology) (010)
> Azamat,
>
> What you're advocating verges on mysticism. Pythagorean mysticism,
> perhaps, but you are nevertheless urging participants in the ONTAC working
> group to grasp these idiosyncratic formulations as though there was some
> kind of cannon or liturgy or scripture from which all your formulations
> emerge ready-to-hand.
>
> Is this an example of the scientific method? Is "the world science of
> Ontology" a distinct scientific discipline, codified and canonized with a
> rich tradition of progress toward truth over the course of human history?
> If you give me Aristotle, can't I counter with Haraclitus? If you give me
> Spinoza, can't I counter with Leibniz (or the Buddha, or intelligent
> design, or whatever)? I don't think there is a cannon, and it drags our
> discourse into all of the worst traits of Artificial Intelligence research
> to pretend that there is...I don't want an encoded ontology of the Great
> Books of the Western World as if such literature contained 'the truth'
> monolithic and uncontested.
>
> The "knowledge trinity" as well implies that we have all joined some holy
> quest for the one true ontology. Even the most dogmatic scientists
> recognize that knowledge doesn't work like that.
>
> I'd also appreciate it if we could eliminate all hints that you are
> selling us something. I suppose mystics have to eat, but I don't want to
> be enticed, however subtly, to investigate the remarkable array of
> artifacts gathered under the EIS rubric.
>
> KL
>
>
> Azamat wrote:
>> Ken,
>> Essentially determining the nature of meaning (and significance), this
>> matter is the core issue not only for a unified computing ontology but
>> also for the machine processed semantics, the key element of the semantic
>> web. For signs (as the words of different languages) must be related to
>> concepts and ontological entities only by a many-to-one relationship:
>> from the words of natural languages (or the symbols of formal ontology
>> languages) to the concepts of the mind (the constructs of knowledge
>> machines) to the categories of ontology (the kinds of things in the
>> world). As an example, consider the class of relationship, which can
>> expressed by as many names as ‘connection’, ‘association’, ‘link’,
>> ‘reference’, ‘regard’, ‘tie’, ‘bond’; or indicated by as many verbs as
>> ‘to relate’, ‘associate’, link’, ‘link up’, ‘connect’, ‘tie-in’,
>> ‘colligate’, ‘refer’, pertain’, ‘concern’, ‘bear on’, etc. Or, take the
>> class of events expressed by as many words as ‘happening’, ‘occurrence’,
>> ‘occurrent’, ‘contingency’, ‘outcome’, ‘effect’, ‘issue’, ‘upshot’,
>> ‘result’, etc. For instance, the process (event) of fire is that
>> significance which the name 'fire' has when it denotes the natural
>> phenomenon. There is a plenty of natural languages using their specific
>> signs for this process, nevertheless having always the same
>> signification, since the concept of fire is the same and the human
>> experience is the same, regardless of its numerous expressions in
>> different natural or artificial languages: 'fire', 'Feuer', 'ogon', etc..
>> So, semantic system may be constructed as a formal semantics or as a more
>> comprehensive and consistent, real world semantics; namely:
>>
>> Formal Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (the SW languages, XML,
>> RDF, OWL) + axioms (mathematical or formal logical) + designation rules
>> (the semantic function from the set of language expressions into the
>> collection of constructs)
>>
>> Real Semantic System = sign (symbol) system + axioms (ontological,
>> mathematical, formal logical) + designation rules + semantic assumptions
>> (the reference function from constructs to real objects cum the
>> representation function from constructs to the state spaces of the world)
>> (ontological entities).
>>
>> Thus, unlike the formal Semantic Web, the real Semantic Web includes the
>> correspondence (reification) rules from constructs to real world entities
>> (semantic assumptions), which parallels the semantic systems of natural
>> and social sciences.
>>
>> As a consequence, the Real Semantic Web (or the world wide intelligent
>> Web) as the pinnacle of ontological semantic technology involves a grand
>> trio of knowledge domains making the Knowledge Trinity:
>>
>> 1. The world science of Ontology caring the real entities, underlying
>> constraints, principles, truths, and strategic rules;
>>
>> 2. Semantics managing the whole works of meanings;
>>
>> 3. Syntax doing business with languages, the signs, and the rules of
>> meaningful constructions.
>>
>> As in the Holy Trinity, each member of the Knowledge Trinity has its
>> unique goal and role. The goal of ontology is to formulate the overall
>> patterns and fundamental laws of the universe, while its role is to set
>> the world models, rules, and reasoning algorithms for advanced
>> information technology. Syntax supplies the totality of signs, marks, and
>> expressions as formal or natural languages with their operation,
>> formation and transformation rules. Semantics is aimed to provide a
>> general theory of meaning relations between signs, constructs and things,
>> assigning signification to syntactic structures and meanings to
>> conceptual structures. So, semantics integrates the totality of signs,
>> signals or symbols, the domain of knowledge, and the universe of
>> ontological entities and relationships into a comprehensive knowledge and
>> reasoning context (a unified ontology framework), serving as the world
>> modeling framework for all sorts of emerging intellectual information and
>> communications technologies.
>>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>> http://www.eis.com.cy
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ken Ewell" <mitioke@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mitioke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <
>> <mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] What should be in an upper-level ontology
>>
>> > JS> Words must be related to ontologies, but that mapping is a complex
>> > many-to-many [or one?] relationship between the words of any natural
>> > language and the categories of an ontology.
>> >
>> > No doubt. Words must be related to ontologies. It is many to many and
>> > one to one. depending only on the given.
>> >
>> >> JS > .any upper level should be as *neutral* as possible. The upper
>> >> levels should have very few axioms.
>> >>
>> > No doubt. I did not offer axioms in the previous post. It does not
>> mean
>> > I do not have them. Consider an axiom that defines a set, named,
>> > appropriately, {self, others} and what falls between.
>> >
>> >> JS > A truly neutral upper level should avoid any commitment to what
>> >> is considered essential vs. what is considered accidental.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> CONFUSING STATEMENTS
>> >>
>> >> JS > the upper level is much less important than the mid and lower
>> >> levels. Don't waste more time and money on things that don't matter.
>> >>
>> > I do not know exactly. My experience is that I was given the upper
>> > level while the lower levels, though muddled, were made to experience
>> > and made to fit, as it were. Just the knowledge of the upper level
>> made
>> > things in the lower and middle layers fit -- that, in my mind, may not
>> > have fit before; I learned. I did not alter my way of thinking in
>> that
>> > I adapted to new facts.
>> >
>> > -Ken Ewell
>> > > _________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (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)
|