- From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:55:29 +0200
- To: "leo" <leo@mgn.ru>
- Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Leonid, Your insistent suggestions concerning the necessity of a fundamental framework ontology, introduction of the 4D approach, and improving the RDF triples have some good points. Moreover, the things look more pressing than you are hinting. To effectively represent the entities in the world the developers have an urgent need of a unifying ontological theory capable to secure the unification of 3D (where) and 4D (where-when) approaches; to afford the adequacy of world representation and reasoning; and to allow for the integrity of web data semantics. Such a global theory of things (or resources) involves [an abstract state space] approach, where the physical space-time continuum constitutes only a part of the whole entity framework. As far as every thing has properties [substantial, qualitative, quantitative, dynamic, or relational], there is the ontological state space marked by a number of fundamental dimensions (N) such as space (3D), time (1D), another physical quantities, and qualities, each of which is endowed with a certain metrical (topological) structure. This imples that any entity (a particle, man, Earth, star, galaxy, or the universe) has its history (biography, trajectory) within the N = (4D+n) state space dimensions, each distinguished by its specific beginnings, stages, endings, or boundaries. Having constructed the ontological space state affords us not only the most efficient mapping of the world's content, dynamics and relationships but also the general reasoning mechanisms (or real logic rules) over its representations and changes. Basing on the ontological space state construct, one can model the knowledge representation and reasoning as a cognitive space as encompassing all sorts of quality spaces, logical spaces, or attribute spaces. Again, one can now construct the whole Web as an abstract information space of interrelated resources, marked by the URI identifications, representation of resources states, and interactions of resouces and semantic agents in the such Web space (Sir Tim Berners-Lee can confirm that this is the major design constituents of the web's architecture). As for the current SW languages, they are all just formal and logical inconsistent schemas, employing some healthy ideas from the set theory, formal logic, or natural language, like the RDF triple overriding the grammatical subject-verb-object sentence structure, or OWL modelling or meta-modelling, trying to describe the web content with the empty constructs of classes, properties, values. In its substance, the Web concerns with the comprehensive dynamic modeling of reality (all that exists and changes). But to uniformly represent the information about the world, its data meaning, you need not to 'enhance' the extant the formal SW schemas and languages but rather an integrative [real world-centric] ontological theory [what i call UFO], a universal language conformable with any pieces and levels of reality, and thus concordant with all manner of conceptual models, theories, and schemas. Regards, Azamat Abdoullaev http://www.eis.com.cy PS: more about the UFO and ontological state space wait for the upcoming book: ''Standard Ontology For Machines and People'' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leonid Ototsky" <leo@mgn.ru> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>; <semantic-web@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:04 PM Subject: Re[2]: [SPAM] Re: re:[semanticweb] taxonomy vs ontology? > Azamat, > I mean that there must be some more deep view to the Ontologiy and > Ontologies including Upper Ontologies. Namely there must be taken into > account not only the "Taxonomy-Mernomy" duality but the 4D approach to > objects (as it assumed by the EPISTLE Core Model)and a unification of > quantitative and qualitative "measurments" as it was accepted in the > Measurment Theory. From this point of view the core "triples" approach > in the Semantic Web foundation must be enhanced. Also a "relativity" > of ontology-epistemology must be taken into account. Also the > biosemiotics ideas must be taken into account as well and the Viable > System Model "hierarchy" too (http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it/beer_vsm.html). > See my paper - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it/21abreast.htm > > Best, > Leonid > > >> Leonid, > >> Thanks for your comments. Please reread my statements and check again to >> find out any essential differences with your comments, leaving behind for >> a >> short while all these amusing 'merology', meronomy', etc. > >> Azamat: >> ''Ontology classifies things, determines distinctions, and identifies >> entities only with respect to the types of relationships having real >> meanings, such as the part-whole relations, space-relations, >> time-relations, >> or causal relations.'' > >> ''Taxonomy works with formal objects and logical classifications and >> conceptual notions such as used in biological taxonomy, species, genus, >> order, family, etc. ...Taxonomy arranges and orders its domain by logical >> classes and categories with respect to the formal relationships like as >> [the >> set inclusion relation and the set membership relations].'' > >> Best, >> Azamat > >> PS: I know well Yuli Schreider's works, also i knew him personally when >> we >> had been at one academic institute. He did many pioneering research in >> formal semantics, cybernetics, informatics reopening now in the West, >> still >> he never understood the great value of ontology. > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Leonid Ototsky" <leo@mgn.ru> >> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> >> Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>; <semantic-web@w3.org> >> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:38 PM >> Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: re:[semanticweb] taxonomy vs ontology? > > >>> Azamat, >>> Before describing the "taxonomy vs. ontology" problem suppose it will be >>> helpful to look at the Duality of "Taxonomy-Meronomy" :-) . >>> Some principle statements of the Classification Theory (CT) which was >>> exploard in Russia in the 70th of >>> the XX >>> (http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/schreidr/schreidr.html) are: >>> 3.1. Any Classification System has two Dual parts - "Taxonomy" and >>> "Meronomy". The first one is "external" and connected with ordinary >>> set >>> theory relations (unions, >>> intersections, hierarchy (a subclass of)) etc.. >>> 3.2. The second one is "internal" and connected with >>> Properties/Parts >>> structure (archetype). >>> 3.3. CT differes from a hierarchy - combinational structure of Taxons >>> and >>> hierarchy - combinational structure of Properties. There are 4 extreme >>> points of combinations of that >>> two scales ( Hierarchy/Combinations of Taxons, Hierarchy/Combinations of >>> Properties). >>> 3.4. A strict hierarchy of Taxons can be described by pure >>> combinations >>> of >>> Properties. >>> 3.5. "Good sets" ,their members and standard set theory relations are >>> described by the "Taxonomy", but the dual part "Meronomy" doesn't fix >>> the sets of objects in principle . Only the "subject areas" with "open" >>> object types and explicitly defined properties for them. A "good" >>> classification system must have the >>> both parts but in practice very often only the taxonomy is used >>> EXPLICITLY >>> . And the Meronomy is "hiden" >>> in human minds. The both parts are used in "Determinants" of biology >>> (for example "birds nests >>> Determinant") but for e-technologies there is a need in much more >>> formalization and structuring of the >>> Determinants. >>> 3.6. The CT differs from a "subject area" or "classsification >>> field" >>> . >>> The first one is "not a closed" class . The last is a "good set" when >>> the >>> proper "primary" identifications >>> from real objects to "minimal" taxons are already defined. The minimal >>> taxons "substitute" real objects >>> in any model. It is important to distinguish "taxonomical" properties >>> from deeper "diagnostic" properties . A value of a taxonomical >>> property >>> may have a complex connection with them. (not clear!). >>> Classifications based on "pure" taxonomy are widely used and for >>> "upper" >>> levels of description with rigid hierarchies of taxons. The Meronomy >>> is >>> not widespread >>> now . >>> >>> Best, >>> Leonid - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it >>> >>> >>> >>>> Neil, David, Yyhong, and other disputants, >>>> >>>> Robert's statement, ''A taxonomy is for describing species'', >>>> looks a most close guess to the point of the matter. >>>> >>>> To distinguish ontology from taxonomy, above all, one needs to >>>> tell apart two basic modes of meaning >>>> [or signification for words], known as the first and second >>>> imposition of terms [words]; namely: >>>> 1. as words signifying things, realities, existences, objects, etc.[ >>>> so-called extension]; >>>> 2. as words sygnifying just ideas, formal concepts, logical >>>> predicates, attributes, etc.[ so-called intension]. >>>> >>>> For instance, in the sentence ''man is a living being'', the >>>> subject is used to name a piece of reality, a living being of a >>>> certain type, while in the sentence ''man is a human species'', the >>>> subject is used in the second intention, symbolizing just a logical >>>> classification. >>>> This ilpies that [Ontology as a formal representation of >>>> reality], the totality of all that exists, operates with the class >>>> of words standing for the types of realities (substances, states, >>>> events, etc.). Accordingly, ontology classifies things, determines >>>> distinctions, and identifies entities only with respect to the types >>>> of relationships having real meanings, such as the part-whole >>>> relations, space-relations, time-relations, or causal relations. >>>> >>>> On the contrary, taxonomy works with formal objects and logical >>>> classifications and conceptual notions such as used in biological >>>> taxonomy, species, genus, order, family, etc. To make it looks real >>>> classification, there are talks among biologists about genetic or >>>> reproductive boundaries of species, etc. But, by its nature, >>>> taxonomy arranges and orders its domain by logical casses and >>>> categories with respect to formal relationships like as [the set >>>> inclusion relation and the set membership relations]. >>>> >>>> The confusion which instigated this good question of distinction >>>> arose for some objective reasons. Most current computational >>>> ontologies are not really ontologies, but rather logical >>>> classifications organized by formal logical [set theoretical] >>>> relationships saying us a little about the real world, but rather >>>> something about the creator's personal experience and intuitions. As >>>> a bad consequence, by not seeing this essential difference, many >>>> current ontologes, both upper are domain, view the entity of >>>> relationship as a formal object. >>>> >>>> So there are a few ontologies as such in computing and >>>> programming practice, most are rather formal logical classifications >>>> of entities, or taxonomies; while the viable reasoning applications >>>> must be based on the models describing real systems as pieces of >>>> reality. Full point. >>>> >>>> PS: Only for OWL developers of 'punning'. >>>> Another similar confusion is related with the ambiguity of names, >>>> which the last version of OWL 1.1 dubbed as 'punning' (a funny play >>>> on words), [when the same name may stand for a class, an indivdiual, >>>> or a property, at the same time]. It was a good try, but the real >>>> reason of this again consists in the nature of words itself and >>>> their modes of signification, which seems to be a closed matter for >>>> the authors of the OWL 'meta-modeling'. >>>> As amatter of fact, any namespace is distinguished by two types of >>>> naming: >>>> I. naming of entities according to their nature, intrinsic >>>> properties [intrinsic denomination]; >>>> II. the namingr with respect with the external relationships in >>>> which some thing stands to something else [extrinsic denomination]. >>>> But this is another matter better to be discussed with the OWL >>>> developers. >>>> >>>> Good wishes to all, >>>> Azamat Abdoullaev >>>> http://www.eis.com.cy >>>> >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>>> From: Robert Stevens >>> >>>> To:wilmering@charter.net ; semanticweb@yahoogroups.com >>> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:48 PM >>> >>>> Subject: re:[semanticweb] taxonomy vs ontology? >>> >>> >>> >>>> A taxonomy is for describing species. One has to be careful >>>> when talking to biologists about ontologies. it was their word first >>>> (I think), but would be interested to hear the contrary. In this >>>> sense, a taxonomy is sort of just the "is-a" hierarchy. >>> >>>> robert. >>>> At 14:12 13/01/2006, Timothy Wilmering wrote: >>> >>>> Neil - >>>> >>>> Generally speaking, (and trying to subscribe to the simplified >>>> view of things) a taxonomy is an "isa" hierarchy of relations >>>> between things or classes of things... >>>> >>>> a proper ontology would then add logical assertions (rules, >>>> constraints) to the hierarchy. >>>> >>>> I have enjoyed the interplay between the discussion >>>> participants re a definition of ontology - it just serves to >>>> illustrate the futility of striving for unified ontological >>>> representations of real world conceptual domains beyond narrow >>>> communities of interest - opinions are like... noses... >>>> everybody has one (including, I see, me!) >>>> >>> >>>> Tim >>> >>>> (Timothy J. Wilmering) >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: semanticweb@yahoogroups.com [ >>>> mailto:semanticweb@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of >>>> neil.mcevoy@ondemand-network.com >>>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:49 AM >>>> To: semanticweb@yahoogroups.com >>>> Subject: [semanticweb] taxonomy vs ontology? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> while the definitions are flying, can someone explain what the >>>> difference >>> >>> >>>> is between a taxonomy and an ontology? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>>> Neil. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS >>> >>> >>> >>>> Visit your group "semanticweb " on the web. >>> >>> >>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >>> >>>> semanticweb-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com >>> >>> >>> >>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> SPONSORED LINKS >>>> Purpose of Ontology Semantic web >>>> War effort Effort florist in Academic >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS >>> >>> >>>> Visit your group "semanticweb" on the web. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >>>> semanticweb-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com >>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of >>>> Service. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> С уважением, >>> Leonid mailto:leo@mgn.ru >>> >>> >>> > > > > > > > -- > С уважением, > Leonid mailto:leo@mgn.ru > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 18:56:07 UTC