W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2009

Re: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology registration/ Re: [ontolog-forum] One new English word every 98 minutes

From: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:17:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4a4804720906140217n29acd3ddrf9b77703413ee8de@mail.gmail.com>
To: metadataportals@yahoo.com
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
Milton

I never ventured as far as Tibetan logic on this list, but if you check the
archive there is a discussion about chinese logic.

Having lived in the east,  and studied eastern thinking, and loving it,  I
am convinced that there is a distincion between western and non western
logic (affectionaly referred to as 'chinese logic' in the discussion), while
JohnS and other writing referenced in the discussion say that logic (such as
fol) is universal and does not differ across cultures and languages,

I have not yet systematically researched the subject yet, but although
surely FOL is the top level logic for any logic, I am pretty sure there
differences  would benefit from being researched and codified further

I am collecting a few examples but not ready to share yet

it would be good if could come up with some practical example/analysis how
tibetan logic differs from classical western logic if you can think of
somethin

I expect at some point we would have to find a way to proof/formalise any
empirical findings

PDM






On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:50 AM, <metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It seems some simplification is urgently in order in this labyrinth of
> standards.
>
> Getting back to my earlier email about endangered languages and focusing
> too much on the lingua franca of the internet, I humbly suggest to first
> borrow some common-sensical thinking from Tibetan Buddhist logic to simply
> the formal discussion about entities, attributes and conceptual ideas laid
> down in the 100 plus standards.
>
> The buddhists refrain from hard formal logic, yet seem to be able to
> capture in generalized, precise terms the essence to make clear distinctions
> between e.g. entities and attributes.
>
> It is no coincidence that this clear thinking from the East resurfaced and
> was put to use in coming to terms with the fundamental philosophical issues
> in quantum physics.
>
> In the end the semantic web deals with natural languages and in most cases
> natural languages in restricted domains.
>
> The jury is still out on how to best formally describe the latter.
>
> I am myself a speaker of a Caribbean creole language derived from
> Portuguese, and have in the past studied aspects of the utilization of
> computational linguistics in selected (read restricted) domains to enhance
> the communicative competence of Creole Language as  written languages.
>
> Creole languages form an interesting field in natural language studies and
> may point to simplified structures for formalizing natural languages.
>
> My humble hypothesis: the formal structures for creole languages and the
> substrate theories for older languages with larger lexica enriching and
> helping mature creole languages (and pidgins into creole languages) can give
> us some useful insights into the minimal formal structure requirements for
> both the natural language and ontology issues.
>
> Since the language acquisition in the utilization of a creole language in a
> native and non-native speaker seem to follow similar "routes" in the
> linguistically hardwired pathways in our brains, such simpler natural
> languages might just provide a simpler formalization.
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> www.rainbowwarriors.net
> Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for
> sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide
> www.projectparadigm..info
> NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm
> www.ngo-opensource.org
> MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data
> and information for sustainable development
> www.metaportal.info
> SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in
> the Metaportal project
> www.semanticwebsoftware.info
>
>
> --- On *Sat, 6/13/09, Azamat * wrote:
>
>
> From: Azamat
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology registration
> To: "[ontolog-forum] "
> Cc: "John F. Sowa" , "'SW-forum'" , semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 7:14 PM
>
> John,
>
> Thank you for alerting about another International Standard candidate, now
> a unifying framework for classifying and registering metamodels, models and
> normative model elements.
> The message of the specification is in Metamodel framework for
> interopreability: part-2: Core model (97 pages);
> http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N1801-1850/32N1848T-text_for_ballot-FCD3_19763-2.pdf(defined as "framework for registering artefacts that are based on metamodel
> amd model").
> The substance of MFI core model is the terms and definitions section, based
> on UML and MOF terms, starting with "abstraction", defined as "essential
> characteristics of an entity that distinguish it from all other kinds of
> entities", seemingly confused with "attribute". Entity defined as "any
> concrete and abstract thing that exists, did exist, or might exists
> including associations among (instances of these) things."
> In the random order, there also given  the senses of object, artefact,
> instance, container, and class, metaclass, classifier, class diagrams, and
> classification; characteristic, attribute, feature and property; operation
> and role; relationship, with its subclasses, subtype, superclass, supertype,
> association, generalization, specialization, dependency, link, and pattern.
> Relation is narrowly defined as "semantic connection among model elements".
> Some meanings are interesting, as conceptual data model, "data model
> representing an abstract view of the real world", concept, framework, or
> class diagram, " a collection of model elements such as classes, types, and
> their contents and relationships", or class itself, "description of a set of
> objects sharing the same attributes, operations, methods, relationships and
> semantics".
> Re. Ontology registration, its classification mechanism is based on
> so-called "labelling-quadrant", involving four basic notions: ModelSign
> (with its definition), ModelConcept, ModelInstance, ModelSelection, all used
> to label and classify ontology components. International Registration Data
> Identifier (IDRI) is relied on data identifier, registration authority
> identifier, and version identifier; an example: modelsign format:
> sign/conceptid/domain name/rai/version.
> Metadadata Registry components (Data Element Concept, Conceptual Domain,
> Value Domain, Data Element).
> Given that we are lost in all sorts of information standards, just w3c has
> been managed to create 110 standards (must be in the Guinness book of
> records), another one will not make a difference unless it is involving
> ontology. Then it should be recognized that the specification is lacking
> effective modeling constructs, as many other existing ontology language
> standards, and as such, hardly can make a standard for ontology registry,
> imo..
> Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and semantic
> technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with effective
> knowledge and content systems and real world applications.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> http://www.standardontology.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:59 PM
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology registration
>
>
> > The Final Committee Draft (FCD) of the Metamodel for ontology
> > registration:
> >
> >
> http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N1801-1850/32N1831T-text_for_ballot-FCD_19763-3.pdf
> >
> > This is part 3 of the ISO/IEC 19763, Information Technology -- Metamodel
> > Framework for Interoperability (MFI):
> >
> > http://metadata-stds.org/19763/index.html
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3..net/file/<http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 06:22:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:58 UTC