Re: The first vocabulary set is here! please take a few minutes to give feedback

I see. Then I recommend taking an approach that begins on the working group's topical focus (Knowledge rep), rather than going down the rabbit hole of highly abstract concepts and upper ontologies. Focus on the domain. If more abstract terms are desired or needed (with justification) then we can assert them and define them to suit the project. But starting the other way around can introduce avoidable delays and confusions.

During my last studies (philosophy degree with knowledge rep), a focus was on them, so I am a specialist in abstracta, those models, and conceptual analysis, but they often leads to distractions, confusions, semantic bloat, contentious arguments, and there is both ethical and technical reasons to avoid them [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-022-01563-3].

On Thursday, June 26th, 2025 at 11:48 AM, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Rovetto for looking at the spreadsheet and for asking pertinent questions
>
> The set is intended a a vocabulary that describes the knowledge domain 'upper ontologies'
>
> The main criterion for inclusion of terms is : is it a class, a category, a property , an attribute or element of
> *any upper ontology?
>
> Another criterion is: is there useful term of reference that describes or relates to upper/top level ontologies
> as justified by a use case
>
> So basically, you can comment/annotate as you like (please use suggestion mode, do not delete)
> and if you think a term is useful to a particular use case, make the case
>
> I ll be deleting a few of the more generic terms that I realize are not very representative and simply have not had
> the time to filter out yet
>
> PDM
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 7:28 PM <ontologos@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paola,
>>
>> I looked at the spreadsheet. My input is:
>>
>> - Questions and Considerations to Set the Stage:
>>
>> - Scope of the project and vocabulary to develop. Does it need more narrowing? (worry about boiling the ocean) Consider my attached KR diagrams.
>> - From Generic to Specific: What degree of abstraction is desired?
>> - Consider: Some terms in the spreadsheet are probably too broad and abstract for the vocabulary's KR scope... unless we develop bespoke definitions that narrows them.
>>
>> Robert(o) Rovetto
>> --
>> I specialize in 3 disciplines. This email address is for 1. Contact about the other 2.
>> -
>> Open to employment, Funding/Sponsors for Personal Projects, & PhD Studentship options.
>> -
>> https://knowledgemodeling.setmore.com/ (Direct Hire)
>> http://ontologforum.org/index.php/RobertRovetto (Ontology profile)
>> https://ontospace.wordpress.com/ (Sample Knowledge Modeling Project)
>> purl.org/wavespace-photography (Photography)
>> On Monday, June 23rd, 2025 at 6:43 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I promised a first version of the AI KR vocab by the end of Q1 2-25.
>>> I am now beginning to release the vocab subsets, divided by subdomain domain
>>>
>>> [AI KR VOCABS.jpg]
>>>
>>> Here a narration video for the slides that explains them
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uZAw90qx1tPDbnVfGBSRCK260q-i8tzI/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Here the slides where you may be able to open the links
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uZAw90qx1tPDbnVfGBSRCK260q-i8tzI/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Please let me know if anything is unclear, or just
>>> Send feedback,
>>>
>>> Have a great beginning of summer
>>>
>>> Paola