Re: URIs

I would like to add that I happen to think that Barry Smith's work on 
mereotopology [1], the information flow framework [2] based on the work 
of Barwise et al., and even the obscure works of Zippie Gonczarowski [3] 
all warrant consideration in light of interest in the category-theoretic 
approaches to KR. I am sure there are others I didn't list here. Robert 
Rosen's daughter, Judith, has created a portal that continues her 
father's work, including reproduction of 6 chapters from his book 
_Anticipatory Systems_.

My intuitions suggest to me that remains much to be learned from 
category-theoretic approaches to KR; indeed, I suspect that subject maps 
offer a possible symbolic approach. After all, as has been said, set 
theory lets you talk about set membership, while category theory lets 
you talk about the social life of those members.

Jack
[1] http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/Mereotopology1.pdf
[2] http://xml.coverpages.org/iff.html
[3] http://users.actcom.co.il/typographics/zippie/
[4] http://rosen-enterprises.com/RobertRosen/biotheorylaunch.html

William Bug wrote:
>
> Oops - I forgot to add...
>
> Again - in this area, I think the TMRM work Jack Park has mentioned 
> may turn out to be extremely useful.  Several folks have already begun 
> to look for ways to bridge that formalism with RDF.  He makes some 
> mention of this in early posts and had some additional insight & 
> direction to provide in his post to this thread yesterday.
>
> Jack also reminded me of series of books on complexity in biological 
> systems that are also very relevant to this discussion - and worth 
> their weight in gold.  Robert Rosen's book "Life Itself: A 
> Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life 
> (Complexity in Ecological Systems)" 
> (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231075650/sr=8-1/qid=1150907430/ref=sr_1_1/102-0692249-1603311?%5Fencoding=UTF8) 
> and the follow-up - "Essays on Life Itself".  Jack is absolutely right 
> - these are seminal books on this topic and quite exciting to read, 
> actually.
>
> I need to go back to my dusty copies and re-read these in the light of 
> the last 5 years of work being done on formal representation of 
> biomedical information.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
> On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Bob Futrelle wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that both natural language *and* ontologies are views
>> of (possibly shallow) underlying knowledge.  This knowledge is
>> difficult to characterize.  It is also difficult to achieve agreement
>> on it within or across communities.
>>
>> I find the following study sobering.  Don't be misled by the term
>> "folk".  Today's science is tomorrow's folk science.
>>
>> - Bob Futrelle
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Abstract
>> Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal
>> 2002, Vol. 26, No. 5, Pages 521-562
>> (doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1)
>>
>> The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory 
>> depth
>>
>> Leonid Rozenblit​‌ - Department of Psychology, Yale University
>> Frank Keil​‌ - Department of Psychology, Yale University
>>
>> People feel they understand complex phenomena with far greater
>> precision, coherence, and depth than they really do; they are subject
>> to an illusion—an illusion of explanatory depth. The illusion is far
>> stronger for explanatory knowledge than many other kinds of knowledge,
>> such as that for facts, procedures or narratives. The illusion for
>> explanatory knowledge is most robust where the environment supports
>> real-time explanations with visible mechanisms. We demonstrate the
>> illusion of depth with explanatory knowledge in Studies 1–6. Then we
>> show differences in overconfidence about knowledge across different
>> knowledge domains in Studies 7–10. Finally, we explore the mechanisms
>> behind the initial confidence and behind overconfidence in Studies 11
>> and 12, and discuss the implications of our findings for the roles of
>> intuitive theories in concepts and cognition. (c) 2002 Leonid
>> Rozenblit. Published by Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights
>> reserved.
>
> Bill Bug
> Senior Analyst/Ontological Engineer
>
> Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
> www.neuroterrain.org
> Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
> Drexel University College of Medicine
> 2900 Queen Lane
> Philadelphia, PA    19129
> 215 991 8430 (ph)
> 610 457 0443 (mobile)
> 215 843 9367 (fax)
>
>
> Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 18:36:43 UTC