Re: [EXT] Re: Upper ontologies

  Very nice discussion!

Definitely, it was not a stupid question, Mikael ;-)!!

Personally, I do think this persecution of a global standardization - a
standardization of standardizations, one that fits all - is a consequence
of our apparent inability to focus on different scenarios all at once
continuously, or multi-focusing multi-dimensional dynamic systems in a
continuous and progressive way. Otherwise what we call 'One' would be known
as 'Everything'.

I would be really amazed if one day the Semantic Web community arrives to
choose one single UO, instead of being chained to several options. As it
was already stated over this thread, there are several perspectives and
interpretations, and none of the existing ontologies would be
representative enough to cover all of them... As every standardization
process is done by a group that represents sets of interests,
interpretations,..., point-of-views.

Maybe the answer for ideal interoperability would not lie over a magnific
idea of some group, who has built an amazing UO that is able to be mapped
onto everything that exists (and non-exists), but, instead, some ontology
evolved entity that is able to learn from different concepts, even when
their syntactic representations diverge from each other.

*Philosophical Speculations...*

But, how to abstract from the syntactic representation we're entangled in
order to define concepts, statements,..., according to the data-models we
have for representing ontologies? '*Procedure'* must be a viable label for
referencing a *Technique* developed to measure a given Property or
Attribute of a given Object, Feature of Interest, and so on... Some would
say that *Method* is also a viable label for doing so.

But, with such different labels, probably synonyms, what are we
referencing? The real scenarios where a given activity may take place or
the knowledge behind them, the 'receipt'? Is this receipt syntactic-free as
a 'real'-world abstract object? In other words, is an axiom the really
'indivisible unit' of knowledge?

I still have no idea... But Semantic Web seems to be a
promising Philosophical bridge that Computer Science needed to continue its
evolution. IMO

Em qua., 13 de jan. de 2021 às 15:24, Dr. Leo J Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
escreveu:

> In fact, that was the topic of the first Ontology Summit we held in 2006
> (Ontolog Forum, NIST, etc.):
> https://ontologforum.org/index.php/UpperOntologySummit
>
> Here's the Joint Communique:
> https://philpapers.org/archive/OBRTU.pdf.
>
> Obrst, Leo; Patrick Cassidy; Steve Ray; Barry Smith; Dagobert Soergel;
> Matthew West; Peter Yim. 2006. The 2006 Upper Ontology Summit Joint
> Communiqué. Journal of Applied Ontology. Volume 1: 2, pp. 203 - 211, 2006.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Pesonen <mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:00 AM
> To: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Upper ontologies
>
>
> Lots of interesting points mentionedand probably the main case against one
> UO being different point of views.
>
> As a thought experiment, wonder if that would be any problem to combine
> those existing 17 UOs into one. So how big an issue is that really in
> practical needs and applications?
>
>
>

-- 
PhD. student at École des Mines in Saint-Étienne



*Interoperability as a work-mission and a passion.... How magnificent it is
the possibility to communicate? Words, symbols, consensus,
grammars....Notes. How interoperable are we with the world as it is offered
to our senses?*