W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [semanticweb] how to explain to humans the term ontology

From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:13:21 +0200
Message-ID: <003b01c61771$95b70260$f802960a@az00evbfog6nhh>
To: <editor@content-wire.co>, <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

''...when modelling  an ontology, we aim to represent reality  as much as 
possible...'

That's right.

''But I would be interested to know if people thinks that there should be 
only one ontology. That would pretty much mean that there should be only one 
view of the world?  I dont think so.''
That's not all right.

Knowingly or unknowingly, we are all after a unified framework ontology 
(UFO) integrating upper-level ontologiesgeneral modelling languages (as 
semantic web ontologies, UML, OO programming languages, etc.) as well all 
the mutitude of domain-specific ontologies and perspectives.

The history of all science is marked by the quest of most unifying theories 
and models about the world and its parts, like a theory of everything 
[physical] in theoretical physics.

But, unlike this, Ontology is a formal theory of everything [physical, 
chemical, biological, mental, social, cultural, or informational, as web 
resources].

Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
http://www.eis.com.cy


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pdm" <editor@content-wire.com>
To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>; <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [semanticweb] how to explain to humans the term ontology


>
>
> In computer science,  'data' offers  a reductive representation of 'the 
> world' - ie whatever we can manage to shrink into a database
>
> I look at my pile of shoes on the one hand, and my table that contains the 
> data relating to the pile of shoes on the other hand, and I
> see two very different things.  The reality is the pile of shoes, the 
> table is a representation of the data. A photo, would be a visual 
> representaiton.
>
> Data, as understood by a computer system does  not represent reality in 
> its entirety and complexity, but a part of it.
>
> What aspects of reality are represented by data, depends by the purpose 
> that the data must serve.
>
> Similarly, when modelling  an ontology, we aim to represent reality  as 
> much as possible, and then often only develop those aspects that are 
> particularly
> useful to the purpose of our system development (every reality can be 
> dissected into subatomic particles, may its not necessary on an everyday 
> basis)
>
> On this list, we have seen a heuristic search  discussion come up ' search 
> by humming' . And someone asked: what do we model, the intervals between 
> different notes, or the cultural context they belong to?  He was asking, 
> what aspect of reality are we going to model? (reply will follow, short 
> answer is: depends on the purpose of the system)
>
> Interestingly, this means that our ability to represent data has become 
> much more versatile, now we can store and search data according to a 
> variety of parameters/
>
> In the protege list, someone started  a 'motorbike ontology'.  I am 
> particularly interested in modelling the relationships of the motorbike 
> compontents to each other, because  I am thinking of a motorbike ontology 
> for the purpose of building a 'self assembling' motorbike, where the 
> components contain a chip that
> knows where the component goes and how should be fitted with the others.
>
> My ontology may model an aspect of reality that may be totally irrelevant 
> to a supplier who is simply building an online catalog for his spare parts
>
> But I would be interested to know if people thinks that there should be 
> only one ontology. That would pretty much mean that there should be only
> one view of the world?  I dont think so.
>
>
> The bottom line is that understanding reality - ie getting the facts that 
> are important to your system goals right -  is key to developing 
> intelligent systems
> Ontologies are tools used to support that process
>
> Wheter computer science  has anything to do with intelligent systems,  or 
> with reality for that matter, depends very much what aspect of the 
> computer science
> we consider.
>
> In the last ten years ' a layer of intelligence has been added even to the 
> dumbest bits of Computers,  ie data and networks, whereby ' intelligence' 
> I refer
> to the ability of a system to understand and respond to an envrionment, 
> Even data and networks are becoming increasingly capable of  context 
> sensitive behaviour
>
> Not everybody's mind is sufficiently open to understand the  breadth and 
> potential of new paradigms.
>
>
> Paola Di Maio
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 12:14:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:11 UTC