RE: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake

Both of these are in fact compatible. I would say, that's the whole
point:

... there was an (uncomfortable for some) consensus that there is
"Ontology" as *the* study of being; and there are "ontologies" that are
domain-specific encapsulations of some aspect of the real world.

_____________________________________________ 
Dr. Leo Obrst       The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics 
lobrst@mitre.org    Information Discovery & Understanding, Command and
Control Center
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305 
Fax: 703-983-1379   McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net] On Behalf Of Peter F
Brown
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:13 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] ; John F. Sowa
Cc: SW-forum
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake

Duane:
You are right. This goes to the heart of the issue of "vicious
circularity" that Whitehead and Russell had thought was sorted with
Principia Mathematica, until Kurt Gödel came along and demolished their
shiny, perfect, world. An ontology is not just some self-referencing
and self-sustaining model that is somehow "complete"; it points out to
the real world, as you rightly say.

Before there is a flame war on this, I should underline that we
discussed this extensively at the Ontology Summit, and there was an
(uncomfortable for some) consensus that there is "Ontology" as *the*
study of being; and there are "ontologies" that are domain-specific
encapsulations of some aspect of the real world.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net] On Behalf Of Duane
Nickull
Sent: 31 July 2007 16:05
To: [ontolog-forum]; John F. Sowa
Cc: 'SW-forum'
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake




On 7/31/07 12:46 PM, "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:

> The real semantics or meanings of any symbolism or notation is
defined by
> ontology; for this is the only knowledge domain studying the Being of
> Everything which is, happens and relates.

Not trying to start a nit picky argument, but I had always thought that
real
semantics are defined by how a term is used and what it is linked to in
a
physical world (which of course can be captured and expressed in an
ontology).  Otherwise any ontology is just a huge circular reference
(like
the english dictionary when void of any grounding.

How can one define and convey the true meaning of spicy food, heat,
pain etc
without the corresponding grounding experience?

Duane 

-- 
**********************************************************************
"Speaking only for myself"
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
MAX 2007 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/07/adobe-max-2007.html
**********************************************************************

 
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 21:35:38 UTC