well, for the (so far) definitive discussion
on being and becoming you should read sein und zeit by martin heidegger.
but i think that definitely "breaks" this list.
i think the question of whether an ULO
is needed is only answerable when we pose the question what is it going
to be used for? probably not for communication between humans, ergo for
communication between humans and machines or between machines.
the key requirement is therefore that
such a ULO has to have meaning for humans: we have to be able to conceptualise
and verbalise using the ULO. I think a number of the discussions on the
list in the past already got this far though.
however: given the fact that all domain
specific ULOs are based on one or other form of formal logic, which is,
I believe, not something humans *use* to conceptualise or verbalise, then
there is a mismatch. i think our discussions also probably got this far
as well:
ontological gap-----------------
\/
domain-specific-ontologies |-------| upper
level ontology
formal logical based
natural language based
conceptual basis is
conceptual basis is human-cognitional
computation, i.e.
i.e. substrate is learning
and
substrate is counting and
experience
logic
my *point* is that we need to be aware
of this gap, and develop an approach to understand it and develop an approach
to bridge it.
regards,
Mark Mattingley-Scott, Ph.D.
Principal
Wireless Broadband & Sensing Solutions EBO
Leader Asset Monitoring EMEA Central Region
Senior Member I.E.E.E., M.G.K,
Chair I.E.E.E. SMC Germany Chapter