- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:25:46 -0700
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Zille Huma" <zille.huma@upb.de>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Alan & Zille I'm back from jury duty, and I read Smith's "Beyond Concepts" paper, and I skimmed through the basic ontology. As I understand "Realism", I agree with the philosophy. I was introduced to this philosophy by Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". I consider her discussion of concepts to be outstanding. However, she barely touches on the subject of "actions". In my terminology, "processes" are either "actions" -- single entity, or "interactions" -- multiple entities. I barely touch on the subject of "interactions". If you want to get a feel for my ontologies, I suggest that you look at http://mKRmKE.org/kb/spo.mkr.html http://mKRmKE.org/kb/tabrasa.html http://mKRmKE.org/kb/tabrasa.def You will need some understanding of my Knowledge Representation language, mKR, to read these ontologies. I suggest looking at http://mKRmKE.org/doc/MKRintro.html Note that mKR has extensive features for describing context, definitions, actions, methods, n-ary relations. My Knowledge Explorer, mKE, has built-in features for interfacing with OpenCyc, OWL, RDF. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com> To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>; "Zille Huma" <zille.huma@upb.de> Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 7:26 AM Subject: Re: Ontologies with standard behavior of an information domain > > Hi Alan & Zille > > I suspect my ontologies are very similar to Alan's, > but I use terminology that is a little more like ordinary English. > (see http://mKRmKE.org) > > compare > process has_participant continuant > to > entity do action done; > > process <=> action > continuant <=> entity > > actions can have modifying phrases which specify time, object, etc. > > I plan to read your references carefully, > but first I have to finish my jury duty. > I'll get back to you soon. > > Dick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > To: "Zille Huma" <zille.huma@upb.de> > Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:06 AM > Subject: Re: Ontologies with standard behavior of an information domain > > >> >> On May 28, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Zille Huma wrote: >> >>> Actually, My interest is to use ontologies in business domain and then >>> define the semantics of web services on the basis of these business >>> ontologies. For example, in the given example, the semantics of a >>> HotelBooking web service can be defined more precisely with an >>> underlying tourism ontology. Thanks for mentioning the ontologies that >>> also contain standard behavior information. I am more curious about how >>> the behavior can be captured in ontology, i.e., what is the structure >>> of any behavioral node in an ontology. What in your opinion is a >>> better way to capture behavioral information in an ontology, e.g., >>> behavior may be captured in the form of business process or stand alone >>> activities, etc. >> >> Hi Zille, >> >> In my own work, I've been using the Basic Formal Ontology (http:// >> ifomis.org/bfo) as the upper level ontology, which defines processes as >> distinct from things that are not processes (continuants). >> Processes(occurents) are dependent, via the has_participant relation, on >> continants. They have parts, which are other processes that occupy a >> piece of the space time of the whole process. >> >> The underlying philosophy of representation is called "Realism", which I >> can best describe as an attempt, when defining terms, to make clear an >> "audit trail", if you will, to entities in the real world, i.e. an >> understandable correspondence between what is being defined in the >> ontology to things that exist or happen actually. If you are interested >> in reading more, check out http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/ >> >> In some ways this avoids the question of what is better, since the >> comparison is of what is represented to what is out in the world. But of >> course this doesn't answer the full question in practice. In practice >> you would first want to make clear what you want to be able to say, and >> then determine what you will need to be able to ask and have answered >> using your ontology. Answers to such questions might determine the >> formalism, or level of detail at which you represent your processes. >> >> As an example, if all you want to do is record something in an Ontology >> and then read it out, then there is little constraint. If you want it to >> be able to be merged with other people's work, then there are some. If >> you want to be able to state general temporal relations between >> activities and have consistency of your ontology checked, then you can't >> even do this within the framework of the current web ontology >> languages. >> >> Experience in the OBI project suggests that you work early on outlining >> such "competency questions" for your ontology. >> >> If you give some such competency questions, I could see if I have any >> experience that might be relevant to your representation issues, or >> perhaps point you at people that do. >> >> -Alan >> > Dick McCullough > mKE do enhance od "Real Intelligence" done; > knowledge := man do identify od existent done; > knowledge haspart proposition list; > http://mKRmKE.org/ > > > > Dick McCullough http://mKRmKE.org/ knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; mKE do enhance od "Real Intelligence" done;
Received on Saturday, 31 May 2008 18:40:11 UTC