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

Re: [semanticweb] how to explain to humans the term ontology or the name of the rose

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@volcano.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:22:52 -0800
Message-ID: <001201c617b6$1bf2edf0$0700000a@rhm8200>
To: "Marja Koivunen" <marja@annotea.org>
Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

I agree with you.

This point of view is supported by the MKR language
(click on link below my name for info).
MKR "context" is based upon  genus-differentia definitions
which produce a genus-species hierarchy of concepts.
One's "context" depends on one's purpose, which affects
one's point of view.

Every MKR statement has a named "context"
which expresses the point of view and assumptions underlying
the statement.

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marja Koivunen" <marja@annotea.org>
To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [semanticweb] how to explain to humans the term ontology or the 
name of the rose

> For a long time I have talked about the value of "personal ontologies" in 
> addition to having more standard widely agreed upon ontologies and let 
> people define their own concepts (they will do it anyway) until they are 
> ready to share them with larger groups and/or try to learn the more 
> standard concepts and what they mean in each person's own reality and link 
> from their concepts to the standard concepts.
> This is all because in my reality this makes sense and I readily accept 
> that it may not make sense in some other people's reality and that's fine. 
> My reality is not only dependent on my abilities to see things, hear 
> things, feel things, smell and taste things and understand things based on 
> the current wiring in my brain (with all my cultural bias) but also what I 
> think is important for my current goals. I often like to simplify the 
> reality when it makes sense. However, in addition I also would like to 
> know and understand the exact reality with all the bits and pieces in 
> their place, and so do a lot of other researchers who unfortunately have 
> only come up with several models, none of which explains everything, some 
> of which do fit  together and some of which  are simplified to make their 
> use easier as they are close enough in most of the cases.
> So what's an ontology? I don't really know exactly, I just have my own 
> approximations. Is it impossible to say "personal ontology" as I have been 
> told many times? I have already said it many times so it was not totally 
> impossible although it has created many discussions during the years. Now 
> I'm starting to like the folksonomy concept for describing what I called 
> "personal ontology" because in my reality it makes sense but most probably 
> that's totally wrong too in some other realities.
> Marja
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 20:23:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:55 UTC