--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/c57dce10-1bc4-cc7b-3843-95ac0611c0fc%40bestweb.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00ab01d50504%24385302b0%24a8f90810%24%40cox.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAGCbhFm7WHj-k4ALZiXPVi0JqbgWtKRsks7xEFYug37fxHVPJw%40mail.gmail.com.
Apologies for this too-long email.
*************************
This is a huge and very complicated subject -- but I think there are some big-picture simple things that can be said about it.
I got interested in "categories and concepts" many years ago, initially from a holistic and graphical point of view. I got into the study of "mystical symbols" when I first went back to the university, and what emerged for me was the idea that many such symbols can properly be understood as a kind of "pre-mathematical intuition” into profound ontological subjects. Clear examples might include the cross, mandala, and yin/yang, and probably some others like axis mundi. I like this model of “mandala” – taken from the “wheel of the dharma” on the national flag of India. http://originresearch.com/interval/index.cfm
Human beings have not yet advanced to the point of collective evolution where the commonly repeated symbols that arise in deep intuition are well-understood. They are seen as art, as fantasy, as emotional or simply as incomprehensible, as "mystery". Scholars like Joseph Campbell and psychologists like Jung have looked carefully at this topic, but perhaps not from the point of view of scientific interpretation. But maybe Ramon Lull was moving in this direction.
John, you said the other day in a previous thread that your experience with people trying to connect "data" and "information" with "wisdom" was that their ideas generally tended towards "mush". I know what you mean; I often feel something similar -- because it seems to me that the enterprise of human civilization has not (yet) established a clear and non-controversial understanding of holistic or graphical thinking. So the common thinking is muddy. This entire domain of analysis itself might be thought of as mush. It's uncharted, pre-scientific, unmapped, still blurry and very experimental. It's the mysterious domain of "religion". Skeptics shake their head and walk away.
This is the connection between analysis and intuition, between empiricism and holism – and how that connection is experienced in a normal human mind. At the linear/empirical/scientific end of the spectrum, things are pretty clear. We understand measurement. But what is at the absolute top of this descending cascade? This is the domain of “the absolute container” – where everybody and everything get confused….
*
As I started thinking about this comment, in the afterglow of the very interesting ontology summit just concluded, with its reference to an array of special-case ontologies -- both graphical and verbal -- perhaps seen in the light of Michael Gruninger's comment (if I understood it right) that we do indeed need broader/more inclusive ontologies -- that there might be a huge missing area in the study of intuition.
What about an ontology of symbols? Pull together 500 or 1000 primary and common symbols from various traditions around the world -- and work on interpreting their meaning. Nils Bohr had the "yin/yang' symbol on his personal coat of arms. What does it mean? What are its ontological implications? It's clearly a mathematical form.
Years ago at Berkeley, I bought an engineering book on the "Smith Chart" -- which was about radio antenna design -- because its large-page format presented multiple alternative versions and interpretations of the yin/yang diagram -- a circle with a large letter S dividing it into two sections – which turned out to have major implications for the behaviour of radio waves.
This kind of symbolism has arisen in in some form in every culture that has been studied. So, I think the explanation is -- people are struggling to understand their own deepest intuitions. These symbols are like mathematical hypothesis based on "best guess" approaches. "I don't know for sure what it means, but this is what I get".
*
Today, many years later, I am still following my guiding holistic intuition. I am continuing to take notes and gather elements on what looks to me like a potent universal container for all possibilities of semantic ontology. It's profoundly "mystical" -- and relates to common mystical symbols like "Uroboros" (snake swallowing its tail) -- but it also seems to directly plug in to the concept of "measurement" in its most basic and unquestionable level.
If this framework is making sense, and moving in the right direction -- it might be an exacting map connecting quantitative and qualitative variables -- showing how they can be mapped across a well-defined spectrum of levels.
My guiding intuition is -- all language emerges as labels for distinctions within the continuum -- and those distinctions can be defined at any level of abstraction. Because we have not (yet) accurately and reliably mapped the higher levels of intuition, and do not as yet have the conceptual apparatus to do so, we find ourselves wandering in a mush of confused ideas.
***
So maybe the issue is "what is meant by the concept of a unified ontology?" I personally am not interested in building a huge dictionary. I want to understand the derivation of words and their meaning. I think it is a universal process, and that all meaning can be understood in approximately the same way -- ie, as a dimensional decomposition descending across levels of analysis – where those levels of analysis are clearly defined as the framework for a universal ontology.
In this context -- special case structures don't really matter. They are no longer logically independent objects -- as I think you are saying they are -- but rather as special-case instances a universal/general form that contains them all and from which they are all derived by a highly coherent and rational process.
My guess is -- we are going to see how this works. This does not imply that all independently evolved domains are going to plug into one another immediately. But their common derivation will provide a powerful source of insight. My guess is, we will find ways to meet at the edges, and evolve common ways to interact that span the borders.
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA, 805-705-9174
Weavingunity.net
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:54 AM
To: ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ontolog...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Why a single unifiied ontology is impossible
Twenty years ago, when I finished my book on knowledge representation, I still had some lingering hopes for a unified top-level ontology of everything. But those hopes were always running into inconvenient facts.
Bruce Schuman
I agree with this, Patrick, thank you.
I like this notion of “null” as the common point or space. I’ve been thinking the same thing.
And I think it is short-sighted to presuppose that
“any single top-level ontology [must necessarily] privilege one choice over an infinity of other options”
I think the top level should itself implicitly contain “an infinity of options” – and that this make perfect sense when we understand that “every particular parsing of the space” is a special case instance. We are not trying to make a rigid list of word meanings – we’re trying to make language absolutely and infinitely fluent – and derived from a common source.
If we don’t have the time or situation to drive all ambiguity and uncertainty out of a shared abstract concept by dialog – I’d guess that the statistical methods discussed during the Ontolog Summit today point very strongly towards ways to make excellent guesses. Those guys are awesome. This stuff is do-able.
“Since everything in our ontologies derives from the Thing object, they must all have this in common, which means that they are not disjoint, but in fact are all part of a superset ontology.”
Yes, exactly. I want to hammer on this point until we see it very clearly – until we see how all symbolic and algebraic representation can be derived from this common starting point by a fully coherent process.
This kind of method can explain to any degree of detail the huge range of human diversity in all its dimensionality – while fully holding it together around its common source
From: 'Stingley, Patrick' via ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:58 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ontolog-forum] Why a single unifiied ontology is impossible
I disagree that a single unified ontology is impossible. In fact, I believe it is inevitable.
It is not impossible because SUMO exists. Maybe someone can correct me if this doesn't count as a satisfactory example disproving the thesis.
It is inevitable for the following reason. As we learn from suffering with Protege, all of the members of our ontologies derive from the "Thing" object.
In Set Theory, the only thing all sets have in common is the Null Set and nothing can be derived from the Null Set.
Since everything in our ontologies derives from the Thing object, they must all have this in common, which means that they are not disjoint, but in fact are all part of a superset ontology.
v.r.,
Patrick Stingley
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 1:49 PM Richard H. McCullough <rhmccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
John, you said
... language-based resources, such as WordNet,
are more useful for relating multiple ontologies than any single
top-level ontology that privileges one choice over an infinity
of other options.
I think the synset definitions are an important contributor
to the success of WordNet. These definitions describe the
use of a word in different contexts, and thus define
the concept hierarchy lattice of the ontology.
Without synset definitions, the ontology can be a
very ambiguous structure.
Richard H. McCullough
http://ContextKnowledgeSystems.orgWhat is your context?
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 8:54 AM John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAGCbhFm7WHj-k4ALZiXPVi0JqbgWtKRsks7xEFYug37fxHVPJw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAKKS58u-CfHKFpa30MRJ97pPVZdOiyQ6xOpwtMLS6pY2p8_GYg%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear and respected colleagues,
Ontology answers the question: What is…? as it applies to everything there is, which is actually in perpetual change. Telling machines what things are is the engineering aspect of ontology engineering. A single unified ontology, which would make the life of engineers so much easier, would presume that we can describe, in whichever manner (words, images, sounds, combinations of all kinds of representations), all there is in its continuous change. While the physical—the subset of all there is that is not alive—might be, within a certain framework, fully and consistently described, the living –by far the larger subset of all there is—is undecidable.
These considerations alone should make us aware that a single unified ontology is for reasons related to our relation to reality not possible. For the same reason a single unified ontology of medicine is a goal defying the nature of the entity it would fully describe if it could.
AI as practiced currently being nothing but ontology made operational, to talk about AI in any creative endeavor (medicine is such an endeavor) is nonsense.
Automating tasks we associate with intelligence (even so we do not understand yet what intelligence is) is not the same with making available a machine that “produces intelligence”waiting to be deployed.
Best wishes.
Mihai Nadin
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007501d5051c%24e72df6b0%24b589e410%24%40cox.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007501d5051c%24e72df6b0%24b589e410%24%40cox.net.
Paola
I share your instinct, but for me its rather like having two conflicting postmodern views of truth: one says that there is no absolute truth, only relative; the other says that there is an absolute truth, but we are trapped in limited contexts and can never know what it is because unlike a GUT it would not be verifiable. Either way the practical outcome is the same.
Godfrey
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAMXe%3DSr4xreNgGA%2Byv_Tr7iqOCYTvtiuDN25rt2WqFjCfvj5HA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/003601d50518%24080de520%241829af60%24%40cox.net.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/d4f98936-4b06-32dd-865d-a38108268153%40bestweb.net.
Hi Patrick, Many thanks for the mention. Others have different opinions but I see SUMO (http://www.ontologyportal.org) as a clear existence proof that a common ontology is possible. After nearly two decades of encoding a wide variety of domains, each new project has required elaboration but not rework of any significant portion of the ontology. Much like conventional procedural programming, we've collectively realized that with some considerable effort, reusable generalizations are possible. all the best, Adam
Hi Adam,
It has been a while!
Anyway, I quickly loaded your SUMO->Wordnet and SUMO rendition in OWL to our URIBurner instance.
Results:
1. Entity
Type Sampling -- just click !
Kingsley
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com Weblogs (Blogs): Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers Personal Weblogs (Blogs): Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ http://kidehen.blogspot.com Profile Pages: Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/ Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Web Identities (WebID): Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this
The basis for the merge is ;; is the upper level of Sowa's ontology. The definitions and axioms of the other sources ;; have been mapped into this ontology. Thus far, the merge incorporates Russell and Norvig's ;; ontology, Casati and Varzi's theory of holes, Allen's temporal axioms, the relatively ;; noncontroversial elements of Smith's and Guarino's respective mereotopologies, and the KIF ;; formalization of CPR. Note that this file does not not, as of yet, include Sowa's ;; upper-level ontology.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/9f461d80-5266-b2fa-b7e6-1440f22bc11d%40articulatesoftware.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/d975a2e1-41cf-23a3-756b-3764ec07170e%40articulatesoftware.com.
Patrick
I disagree that a single unified ontology is impossible.
In fact, I believe it is inevitable. It is not impossible
because SUMO exists.
SUMO is fine for your applications. But suppose you're working
on a project that has to communicate with other systems that
use Cyc, DOLCE, BFO, ISO 15936, or no ontology at all. How
can all the components communicate if they're using different
ontologies?
Hi John,
It is possible to cross-reference terms across ontologies and then use reasoning and inference for harmonization (or disparate data virtualization) [1].
[1] https://community.openlinksw.com/t/applying-reasoning-inference-to-equivalent-class-relationship-type-semantics/907
-- equivalent class reasoning across FOAF and Schema.org
Ontologies (this is a very simple example; so much more is
possible across ontologies using the same approach).
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/e549915c-f7cf-bbb4-d085-f8584572f54f%40openlinksw.com.
I am encouraged by this conversation and by the new voices that are showing up.
I have been inclined to suggest a kind of “ontology summit” that is intended to explore the issues involved in collaboratively developing a “single unified ontology”.
Yes, this is exploratory, yes this is challenging, yes there are feasibility and complexity issues.
As I have settled into this thought over the past week or so, responding to comments here, and attending the very interesting ontology summit seminars – and keeping an eye on what is going on right now in US politics – I have continued to develop what might (?) be a feasible approach to this subject.
Could a network emerge interested in exploration and development, if approached in the right way?
This morning, I am writing a detailed response in dialog format to the Wikipedia article on upper ontology – which discusses the issue in general, and then presents two arguments – one against the feasibility of a unified upper ontology, and another argument defending the feasibility.
My article might be a 15-page word.docx document, but it would be interesting for me to get some comments and response. I might have it done by noon.
I like the Wikipedia article. I think it is well-written, responsible, expert, and fertile.
I think it makes sense for anyone interested in upper ontology – pro or con – to be acquainted with its arguments. Take a look if you have ten minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology
In its list of working upper ontologies, the first one listed is John Sowa’s (1999). The second is CYC. BFO, Sumo, and WordNet are also discussed, as is the “Process Specification Language” (PSL) created by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Azamat Abdoullaev
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 7:05 AM
To: ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAKK1bf_m6hbN3g2H-LezVhOeEMf4VthvYvYo_6JnjyuRDwu1%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear Bruce,
You won’t achieve a single Top Level Ontology, because different ones make different ontological choices that are inconsistent with each other. What might be achievable is collecting the top level ontologies into families that make the same ontological choices, and then map between those families.
Regards
Matthew West
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/006701d50688%24a32b4ae0%24e981e0a0%24%40cox.net.
Thank you, Matthew. That subject comes up in the Wikipedia article, and the author does make some suggestions regarding this issue.
I think one possible source of confusion has to do with what might be happening at the top level – which the Wikipedia author and I am suggesting should be approached through negotiation and very high-level generalizations – probably taken from cognitive science and concept theory or semantics, or maybe very basic mathematics (“what is a distinction in the continuum, and how is a label or value assigned to it?”)
In many ways I am new to this subject – and might be using the term “ontology” in a slightly different way than most professional working semantic ontologists. I agree, absolutely, that what is at the top is pretty mysterious, and has to be very profound and universal to be workable under all circumstances. So – this idea might be significantly different than what is at the top level of most working special-case ontologies.
MW
> What might be achievable is collecting the top level ontologies into families that make the same ontological choices, and then map between those families.
I like your idea and suggestion. It is an unpretentious and workable starting point. What would happen if we explored negotiation between representatives of these ontologies? I do have some ideas on that I might share tomorrow. “Start slow, ask questions, one step at a time, what do people want to do?”
Except that the top level hierarchy you have drawn directly contradicts the two conceptual definitions you have written, which imply that “relation” is a subclass of a top level element “entity”, and neither of them is a subclass of “universe” (whatever it is you mean by that).
Godfrey
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Richard H. McCullough
Sent: 10 May 2019 06:17
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Why a single unified ontology is impossible
To all,
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/BYAPR06MB62157FA4B18D2785A9D4A2ADCB0C0%40BYAPR06MB6215.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/BYAPR06MB62157FA4B18D2785A9D4A2ADCB0C0%40BYAPR06MB6215.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Dear Bruce,
Thank you, Matthew. That subject comes up in the Wikipedia article, and the author does make some suggestions regarding this issue.
I think one possible source of confusion has to do with what might be happening at the top level – which the Wikipedia author and I am suggesting should be approached through negotiation and very high-level generalizations – probably taken from cognitive science and concept theory or semantics, or maybe very basic mathematics (“what is a distinction in the continuum, and how is a label or value assigned to it?”)
[MW>] I don’t think negotiation is going to work. There is not room for compromise, the choices are distinct and non-scalar. Here are some examples:
Generally you have to pick one from each group. As an example of the different choices here are the choices made by BFO and ISO 15926.
Basic Formal Ontology
ISO 15926-2/HQDM/IDEAS
These choices affect how such ordinary things as plans, physical objects and information are handled.
In many ways I am new to this subject – and might be using the term “ontology” in a slightly different way than most professional working semantic ontologists. I agree, absolutely, that what is at the top is pretty mysterious, and has to be very profound and universal to be workable under all circumstances. So – this idea might be significantly different than what is at the top level of most working special-case ontologies.
[MW>] It certainly is.
MW
> What might be achievable is collecting the top level ontologies into families that make the same ontological choices, and then map between those families.
I like your idea and suggestion. It is an unpretentious and workable starting point. What would happen if we explored negotiation between representatives of these ontologies? I do have some ideas on that I might share tomorrow. “Start slow, ask questions, one step at a time, what do people want to do?”
[MW>] Yes, you can then hope to compare how they address the same things, and how well they actually manage to be universal (hint, many of them are more limited than they would have you believe).
ISO 21838-1 sets out a standard for documenting Top Level Ontologies. BFO already has a draft of conformant documentation, and I notice early work on DOLCE and I think PSL has recently been published. It will be interesting to see how this progresses as it shines a light on what we have at present.
Regards
Matthew West
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/004801d506b1%24b0a2b950%2411e82bf0%24%40cox.net.
I am continuing to explore this issue, and very much appreciate Matthew’s interesting comments and suggestions. I want to review those issues and “division points”, and consider what might (?) be a possible path towards reconciliation. I note that an announcement posted on Ontolog immediate following Matthew’s message mentioned an upcoming conference workshop where these issues will be discussed. I thought that was fascinating and very encouraging timing.
Just for the moment, I want to send my experimental top-level hypothesis in a graphic format. Yes, this is very brief and raises many complex and controversial issues. And I am not proposing it – merely suggesting it as an object for creative contemplation. But this point of view does suggest a top-level integration where all (supposedly all conceivable) facets of diversity in conceptual structure can be integrated and mapped into a common form.
***
***
Note the nominal level is the lowest measurement level used from a statistical point of view.
Again, in statistics, all these levels of measurement are aimed to process, classify, rank, or specify DATA, while Ontology is to process, classify, rank, or specify ENTITY IN THE WORLD, as basjc kinds, classes, or clusters of things.
What might be really innovative is Statistical Ontology representing the World in terms Data Sets or Data Structures using Entity Categorization, scales of measure and statistical modeling and graphical techniques.
The statistical domain ontologies tend to be populations and samples and use cases, variables and values, data sets and big data, as well as complex applied ontologies, as artificial neural networks, common frameworks for machine learning algorithms.
Statistical Ontology is to underpin not only the mathematical science of statistics, but its many future applications, as Statistical AI, Computational statistics, or Statistical Computing, Statistical learning theory, etc, all to progressively represent/measure the world and its content as data, information, knowledge and wisdom.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/012401d50827%24fffcec10%24fff6c430%24%40cox.net.
BS
> I am fascinated by this notion of “universal container”.
MW
> The real question is not the container, it is what you put in it.
JS
> I agree. But I would say that it's irrelevant what you call it.
Some basic questions:
What's in it? How did it get that way? Why? How can we describe it?
What does it mean for us? What can we do about it? What should we do about it?
What are the implications of the various options? Why should we care?
BS
And oh yes, from the back cover of Applied Ontology: An Introduction, by Barry Smith and Katherine Munn, http://ontology.buffalo.edu/AppliedOntology.pdf
Ontology is the philosophical discipline which aims to understand how things in the world are divided into categories and how these categories are related together. This is exactly what information scientists aim for in creating structured, automated representations, called 'ontologies,' for managing information in fields such as science, government, industry, and healthcare. Currently, these systems are designed in a variety of different ways, so they cannot share data with one another. They are often idiosyncratically structured, accessible only to those who created them, and unable to serve as inputs for automated reasoning. This volume shows, in a nontechnical way and using examples from medicine and biology, how the rigorous application of theories and insights from philosophical ontology can improve the ontologies upon which information management depends.
*******
I've been wanting to reply to Matthew's suggestions for a few days, as I build out some way to approach his concerns and incorporate his suggestions.
For me, this notion of "container" makes a lot of sense. So, if we are pursuing a unified ontology, what would it contain?
Let's say we start with a few broad definitions -- what is ontology, what is "semantic ontology", what is an "upper" (or "foundational") ontology, what are its components?
I'm happy to start with Wikipedia definitions. These pages sketch out the subject area and some of the common ground, which I cite below in descending order of generality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology -- broadest "container" – this highlighted sentence generally points in our specific direction
Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) – Our general topic in more specific terms
In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming and definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities that substantiate one, many or all domains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_components -- a list of particular objects and elements in some specific context or domain
Contemporary ontologies share many structural similarities, regardless of the language in which they are expressed. Most ontologies describe individuals (instances), classes (concepts), attributes, and relations.
Matthew has cited a list of possible positions on underlying questions and methods, which he sees as incommensurate deal-breakers (without following the helpful approach he suggests).
What I am inclined to do – is review these issues – and perhaps develop a detailed catalog of these concerns and positions – nominalism, realism, conceptualism, etc.
So as predicate, I have to say I don’t see these various positions as unreconcilable – because I see them all as facets of (or perspectives within) a single underlying unity. Our job as I see it is to define this underlying unity – and I personally see this as a reasonable and entirely rational undertaking. We have many sources of insights, ranging from across the entire spectrum of scientific and philosophical history. The times they are a-changing. The failures from last week are an instructive part of the learning curve. This is do-able.
MW> What might be achievable is collecting the top level ontologies into families that make the same ontological choices, and then map between those families.
I need to see this in more specific and concrete terms – but yes, this looks like the right way to start. But let’s also ask along the way how if at all do any of these existing frameworks limit their power by making limiting choices? Why are we compelled to choose from those first three or four choices? Do these choices really make sense in the context of modern science?
Wikipedia redirects a search for “nominalism, realism, conceptualism” to this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
There is a long list of related subjects on this page, which might a very good start on a “catalog of philosophic positions” on these questions.
But in my genteel opinion, as application-oriented scientists and engineers, we can cut through this in a hurry. We don’t need to debate whether “properties are real” as per nominalism. From an applied practical point of view, that discussion is a waste of time. Call them “mere heuristics” if that makes you happy. To say that “this actual automobile is real but there are no such things as automobiles” is nonsense for somebody in the automobile business.
HOW TO FIX THIS
Years ago, I came to the conclusion that this entire discussion can be avoided and dismissed by the adoption of a single methodology or observation: What we need to recognize is that this entire business involves two (three) stages: 1) the study of the world, and 2) the representation of facets or qualities or aspects of the world in abstract symbolic models, and (if we are scientists) 3) the testing of those models by empiricism. As scientists and theorists and engineers, we are moving back and forth constantly between the “real” object and our symbolic representation of it, testing and confirming and validating our model. In the end, as computer scientists or ontologists, we must (should) recognize that we are studying the properties of abstract symbolic models, and then comparing those models to reality by testing and “empiricism”. We can come up with unified and non-contentious/non-fragmented ways to do this.
If I really want to stop traffic on this subject, I am inclined to cite the $400 1200-page Springer Handbook of Model Based Science, which gathers top world authorities and authors to review these questions. https://www.amazon.com/Springer-Handbook-Model-Based-Science-Handbooks/dp/3319305255/
The handbook offers the first comprehensive reference guide to the interdisciplinary field of model-based reasoning. It highlights the role of models as mediators between theory and experimentation, and as educational devices, as well as their relevance in testing hypotheses and explanatory functions. The Springer Handbook merges philosophical, cognitive and epistemological perspectives on models with the more practical needs related to the application of this tool across various disciplines and practices. The result is a unique, reliable source of information that guides readers toward an understanding of different aspects of model-based science, such as the theoretical and cognitive nature of models, as well as their practical and logical aspects. The inferential role of models in hypothetical reasoning, abduction and creativity once they are constructed, adopted, and manipulated for different scientific and technological purposes is also discussed. Written by a group of internationally renowned experts in philosophy, the history of science, general epistemology, mathematics, cognitive and computer science, physics and life sciences, as well as engineering, architecture, and economics, this Handbook uses numerous diagrams, schemes and other visual representations to promote a better understanding of the concepts. This also makes it highly accessible to an audience of scholars and students with different scientific backgrounds. All in all, the Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science represents the definitive application-oriented reference guide to the interdisciplinary field of model-based reasoning.
****
Plus, there are emerging conference workshops on these themes at the upcoming JOWO 2019 conference.
I looked at these and find them fascinating and exciting and highly relevant:
The JOWO workshops address a wide spectrum of topics related to ontology research, ranging from Cognitive Science to Knowledge Representation, Natural Language Processing, Artificial Intelligence, Logic, Philosophy, and Linguistics. JOWO is especially suitable for interdisciplinary and innovative formats.
JOWO 2019 website: https://www.iaoa.org/jowo/2019/
The following workshops are being organized:
* 2nd International Workshop on Bad or Good Ontology (BOG).
Chairs: Torsten Hahmann, Rafael Peñaloza, Stefan Schulz, Giancarlo Guizzardi, Oliver Kutz and Nicolas Troquard
* Cognition And OntologieS (CAOS IV).
Chairs: Oliver Kutz, Maria M. Hedblom, Guendalina Righetti, Danielle Porello and Claudio Masolo
* Workshop on Foundational Ontology (FOUST).
Chairs: Antony Galton, Stefano Borgo, Oliver Kutz, Frank Loebe and Fabian Neuhaus
***************************************
[MW>] What might be achievable is collecting the top level ontologies into families that make the same ontological choices, and then map between those families.
I like your idea and suggestion. It is an unpretentious and workable starting point. What would happen if we explored negotiation between representatives of these ontologies? I do have some ideas on that I might share tomorrow. “Start slow, ask questions, one step at a time, what do people want to do?”
[MW>] Yes, you can then hope to compare how they address the same things, and how well they actually manage to be universal (hint, many of them are more limited than they would have you believe).
ISO 21838-1 sets out a standard for documenting Top Level Ontologies. BFO already has a draft of conformant documentation, and I notice early work on DOLCE and I think PSL has recently been published. It will be interesting to see how this progresses as it shines a light on what we have at present.
Regards
Matthew West
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA, 805-705-9174
Weavingunity.net
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:50 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Yin Yang Symbol
On 5/13/2019 2:03 PM, Matthew West wrote:
> I am fascinated by this notion of “universal container”.
>
> [MW] There is a universal container. It’s called a dustbin (trash
> can). The real question is not the container, it is what you put in it.
I agree. But I would say that it's irrelevant what you call it.
Some basic questions:
What's in it? How did it get that way? Why? How can we describe it?
What does it mean for us? What can we do about it? What should we do about it? What are the implications of the various options?
Why should we care?
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/012001d509e5%24c3e197c0%244ba4c740%24%40cox.net.
Ontology is the philosophical discipline which aims to understand how things in the world are divided into categories and how these categories are related together. This is exactly what information scientists aim for in creating structured, automated representations, called 'ontologies,' for managing information in fields such as science, government, industry, and healthcare. Currently, these systems are designed in a variety of different ways, so they cannot share data with one another. They are often idiosyncratically structured, accessible only to those who created them, and unable to serve as inputs for automated reasoning. This volume shows, in a nontechnical way and using examples from medicine and biology, how the rigorous application of theories and insights from philosophical ontology can improve the ontologies upon which information management depends.
Applied Ontology: An Introduction, by Barry Smith and Katherine Munn, http://ontology.buffalo.edu/AppliedOntology.pdf
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/ee1893e2-e650-873f-14c4-008e360a567f%40bestweb.net.
|
I'd been looking at Maria's book, and something I think she cites by Michael Gruninger on Foundational Ontologies for Units of Measure, and yesterday I discovered another "big book" on concept theory which was $120.00 until I found a complete version in PDF at https://academiaanalitica.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/cohen-h-lefebvre-c-eds-handbook-of-categorization-in-cognitive-science.pdf -- or http://bit.ly/2JO6C45. Yesterday after responding to John's message about "cats hiding under the bed" I started sketching out some possible soft approach to a collaborative universal ontology. John cites Tao and other such at the end of http://jfsowa.com/csbook/cs7.pdf
Is there some common foundation? A foundation that span all disciplines – and indeed, "all religions" – not to mention "all sciences"? Could there be? What would it looks like? How powerful would it have to be to overcome the seemingly endless controversies – some of which Maria cites (empiricist, universalist), some of which Matthew cited the other day:
*****
I woke up last night about 2:30 am, chanted a ritual prayer or two -- and then suddenly found my head (again) cooking up some conceptual integration -- kind of like those famous stories about the creative process. Should I write these ideas down -- or will I remember them in the morning? I got out of bed and turned on the computer. Get this big-picture master theme defined: "concept of all concepts". It's a container (i.e., a boundary) -- but it has an unambiguous and determinate implicit/internal structure. It's all about "bounded intervals". Boundary values. Every conceivable distinction within any possible spectrum of measurement at any level of precision defined in any combination of dimensions. And it directly maps all the big holistic/composite ideas from ontology -- semantic or otherwise. Abstraction, taxonomy, part/whole, alphabets, words, semantics, arithmetic, logic, Boolean algebra, many other elements -- and it’s all contained within and derived from the continuum. Every idea or conceptual structure or symbolic representation of any sort whatsoever emerges from the continuum and can be mapped in infinite micro-detail and micro-precision to it.
How much “uncertainty” or “ambiguity” in natural language can be explained by boundary values in the definition of abstractions? The answer is: a lot.
I see the world drowning in what looks to me like semantic idiocy. You guys paying any attention to the dialogue between Barr and Mueller and the “rule of law”? That entire issue is a poisoned swamp for reasons that are the province of semantic ontology. Where is the semantic ontology of law? So yes, I can be a bit volcanic about this.
If I had my way, we’d round up a small crew with the time and energy to start patching together the big picture across the entire range of ontology – from the highest levels to the most specific. We should take that catalog of supposedly incommensurate positions listed by Matthew and interpret them as alternative perspectives within a common spectrum. Each of them has its reasons and is motivated, each of them has its meaning and value and context and is important in its own way. Taken all together, they form the general framework of ontological inquiry. Maybe we should add a catalog from the philosophy of mathematics (constructivism, intuitionism, etc.)
Put that statement of general principles from John at the top of the process and work from there. Keep it simple. Clarify those few big points and make them foundational.
*
So yes, there are significant differences within this spectrum. In my case, my entire life has been beneficially influenced by these principles I learned from John – but I am a top-down analyst, and I want comprehensive system-based solutions, not local-only heuristics that are mutually incommensurate in a global context. “Do it right – see it from the right point of view -- and it’s not impossible.”
Should we sit here stupidly while the frogs boil, because we can’t see how to connect these alternative perspectives? Are we waiting for “somebody else to do it” – or are we just waiting around “for God to be nice”?
I’d say there is tremendous co-creative force in the air right now – probably in ways that are “historically unprecedented”.
Ok. Waiting to exhale. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 8:20 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com; ontolog...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Why a single unified ontology is impossible
On 5/31/2019 12:16 PM, bruces...@cox.net wrote:
> For me, the foundations for a common unity can be derived as an
> interpretation of the continuum. Everything arises within the
> continuum -- every idea, every distinction -- and everything is
> grounded in the continuum...
>
> Just to note -- for me, all this stuff about "it's all derived from
> the continuum" actually started with stuff I learned from JS long ago...