Peirce's outline classification of sciences -- RE: SUO: Site Of Uberty (SOU)
Along these lines, Peirce's outline classification of the sciences is
presented by Tommi Vehkavaara at:
http://mtlserver.uta.fi/~attove/peirce_systems2.PDF
Some papers by Vehkavaara on metaontology and biosemiotics are at:
http://www.uta.fi/~attove/
Phil Jackson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:11 PM
> To: Douglas McDavid
> Cc: Stand Up Ontology
> Subject: Re: SUO: Site Of Uberty (SOU)
>
>
>
> Douglas McDavid wrote:
> >
> > Jon --
> >
> > This is actually the source that I most had
> > in mind as a resource to get our enterprise
> > more firmly situated on firm, practical,
> > underpinnings:
> >
> > http://lcweb.loc.gov/cds/lcsh.html
> >
> > Classification systems like UCD, Dewey, and
> > even Library of Congress Classification System
> >
> > http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html
> >
> > are by their nature branching taxonomies, since
> > they are designed to resolve to a single leaf
> > level for any item (book, web page, whatever)
> > because they are meant to point to a single
> > physical location of an item on a shelf
> > (originally).
> >
> > Subject heading lists, on the other hand, form
> > a more unlimited lattice or lattice-like structure,
> > since an item can have any number of subject headings
> > pointing to it. Libraries generally (always?) use both
> > a classification system and a subject heading list.
> > The reason I put the question mark in the sentence
> > above is that it has now been 20 years since I was
> > a working librarian, and I haven't tried all that
> > hard to keep up with the field.
> >
> > Doug McDavid
> >
> > Certified Executive Consultant
> > Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
> > Professional Development - BIS, Americas
> > Member of IBM Academy of Technology
> > mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
> >
> > Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu> on 03/18/2001 08:00:25 AM
> >
> > To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
> > cc: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> > Subj: SUO: Site Of Uberty (SOU)
> >
> > Douglas McDavid wrote:
> > >
> > > Jon --
> > >
> > > I happen to agree with you, of course. But I've been informed in no
> > > uncertain terms, several times in previous weeks, that ontology has
> > > absolutely nothing to do with library (bibliographic) classification.
> > >
> > > Doug McDavid
> > >
> > > Certified Executive Consultant
> > > Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
> > > Professional Development - BIS, Americas
> > > Member of IBM Academy of Technology
> > > mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
> > >
> > > From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>@ieee.org
> > > On: 03/17/2001 07:33:59 PM
> > > To: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> > > Subj: SUO: Site Of Interest (SOI)
> > >
> > > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> > >
> > > Here's one that looks like it's up our alley:
> > >
> > > http://www.ams.org/mathweb/Classif/RZhClassification.html
> > >
> > > | This classification was prepared as a piece of
> > > | the UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) which
> > > | covers all knowledge in a fairly uniform way.
> > >
> > > Jon Awbrey
> > >
> > > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Doug,
> >
> > Hmmm. Y'know, I was not even thinking of all that busyness at the time.
> > I ran into that scheme'o'things mat'mat'cal (= (mat^2)cal?) when I was
> > looking up what had been weblished lately on "differential extensions",
> > and I guess what I had in mined at the time was the recent discussions
> > about "a(n) SUO BookSelf", to which this scheme'o'things bib'graph'cal
> > just struck me fancy like it might be relevant. Owse about you? --
> > yes, it's re'TIR'cal ...
> >
> > By the way, there is the rest of that scheme -- on beyond math --
> > I just thought that a sample to the wise would be sufficient ...
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/sgml-xml.html
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/classification.html
> > http://www.ams.org/mathweb/Classif/RZhClassification.html
> >
> > For yy from y0:
> >
> > | Illud autem existens in anima quod est signum rei,
> > | ex quo propositio mentalis componitur ad modum
> > | quo propositio vocalis componitur ex vocibus,
> > | aliquando vocatur intentio animae, aliquando
> > | conceptus animae, aliquando passio animae,
> > | aliquando similitudo rei.
> > |
> > | William of Ockham, 'Summa Totius Logicae', 1.12.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > Still, a funny thing about librarians:
> > They always seem to get the last word.
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Doug,
>
> Allow me to speculate on what the possible sources
> of resistance might be to our simply using the more
> honest name of "taxonomy" instead of "ontology".
>
> 1. Several fields of knowledge of my acquaintance,
> that participate to some degree in this effort,
> have recently gone through a "taxonomic phase",
> and the word has come to take on a dated sound.
>
> 2. On a related note, the people who went through
> this phase, or even heard about the aftermath,
> are either burned out or bored to tiers about
> the whole idea, not the least of which jaded
> disillusionment and alexandrian ennui arises
> from the realization of how much intellectual
> blood was shed to win a world and grab a prize
> that now seems like such a fardel to administer.
>
> 3. At this point the effects of "cognitive dissonance"
> kick in, and tempts these martyrs to taxonomy with
> the idea that "If we countenanced slaughter for it,
> it must be a grail or a pearl of incomparable value".
>
> 4. Even if there were indeed many who thought that
> the quest after "the one right taxonomy" (TORT)
> was a righteous search for a truly unique thing,
> it became rather abundantly clear to most others
> just how arbitral any such result is bound to be,
> with equally adequate and equally partial schemes
> arising independently in many diverse communities,
> and so the very idea of a "taxonomy" acquired the
> taint, what is a taint of banality for some folks,
> of "pluralism".
>
> 5. Comes the dawn of the new age solution --
> let's just change the name to "ontology",
> by all rights an old part of metaphysics,
> long despised and disused in modern times,
> but all is forgiven, the sins of ancestry
> even commuted, if it can serve to restore
> the monarchy to the throne and render the
> aristocrats of authority that were lately
> overthrown by that rabble-rousing science
> of particpatory relativity feel like they
> had the key to the one true kingdom again.
>
> 6. Besides, "ontology" sounds sexier.
>
> Just A Guess,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤