Re: lattice of ontology
John wrote:
''In a previous note, I compared it to the integers, but that led to too
many confusing associations. Therefore, I'll give another analogy: the
coordinates of latitude and longitude on the earth.''
In making a poem, ''the command of metaphor is the mark of genius'', and I
know here nobody who can overpass John in this ability. But we are trying to
make the science asking for a strict language and precise description and
prediction.
There is the world and its abstract, ontological representation,
intermediated with mathematical theories and logical formalisms and
theoretical sciences, all operating such conceptual tools as models and
schemas, diagrams and graphs, theoretical models and generic theories, and
all distinguished by the definiteness of the sense and scope of the
conceptual representations. Depending on the starting point of analysis of
thing, from abstract structures to factual realities, or vice versa, we
choose either semiotic or ontological interpretations along the general way:
The Real World < Ontology < Mathematics < Logic < Theoretical Science <
Empirical Science < Engineering and Technology < Applications.
We are not at opposite poles. It is plain that you are looking for some sort
of an open-ended reference frame for theories to be functioning like as a
general context for determining the meaning of a construct, or the
space-time frame for measuring the position of a physical object. Extending
your analogy of the globe grid, to determine the location of some place on
the Earth's surface, your need the Poles (North and South), the prime
meridian (at Greenwich) and the prime parallel (the Equator). So what all
the constructs, generic, specific and particular, require is the Entity
Reference Frame in which all things are located as much as the space-time
continuum determines all the physical events.
At the first place, it is required to put up a comprehensive lattice of the
classes of entities and relationships, logically followed with a lattice of
constructs (concepts, predicates or theories) and well-founded with a
consistent set of ontological, factual and semantic axioms.
Regards,
Azamat
PS: Usually I read all your references, no need to remind. For the last one
I have a suggestion: the notion of 'knowledge soup' sounds rather
oximoronic, may be better to use 'data or information soup'.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:16 PM
Subject: Fw: lattice of ontology
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
> To: "'SUO WG'" <standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org>
> Cc: <abdoul@CYTANET.COM.CY>; "psp" <psp@ontologystream.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:55 PM
> Subject: Re: lattice of ontology
>
>
>>I moved this discussion to SUO list.
>>
>> AA> As a matter of fact, there are several levels
>> > of the conceptual representations: a framework, or
>> > generic theory modeling the properties and relationships
>> > of all things of a given domain (as Maxwell equations);
>> > a specific theory or theoretical model representing
>> > some features of some things of a given domain (like
>> > the accounts of specific physical effects); a diagram
>> > or graph sketching the composition and structure of
>> > a thing of a given domain; and a schema just listing
>> > the specific properties of a thing in a given domain.
>>
>> The number of levels and ways of conceiving things are
>> open-ended. And the lattice of theories is just one tiny
>> piece of a very, very big puzzle. (And when I say that
>> an infinite lattice is a tiny piece, you must realize
>> that the whole puzzle must be very big indeed.)
>>
>> In a previous note, I compared it to the integers, but that
>> led to too many confusing associations. Therefore, I'll
>> give another analogy: the coordinates of latitude and
>> longitude on the earth.
>>
>> 1. Some places, such as the clock in Grand Central Terminal,
>> are very busy with lots of people coming and going all
>> the time.
>>
>> 2. Other places, such as the North Pole and South Pole are
>> important reference points, but almost nobody ever goes
>> there.
>>
>> 3. And the great majority of the places are in open ocean,
>> where people occasionally pass through, but nobody ever
>> builds a home there.
>>
>> 4. Like the geographical coordinates, the lattice makes no
>> value judgments. It doesn't say that one place is better
>> or worse than any other. The only thing it does is to show
>> how one place is related to its neighbors and to other
>> places that are far away.
>>
>> 5. The four theory revision operators are like directions:
>> move N, move S, move E, move W. And the analogy operator
>> is like an airplane flight that suddenly picks you up in
>> one place and deposits you in another place far, far away.
>> But like an airplane schedule, the lattice doesn't tell you
>> why or whether you should go one place rather than another.
>>
>> 6. Furthermore, having a system of coordinates does not magically
>> give you a way of determining the coordinates of any given
>> point. After the modern system of latitude and longitude was
>> invented, it took many years before even a rough approximation
>> to latitude could be computed, and it took centuries before
>> the modern GPS system became available. Yet some people such
>> as the Polynesian islanders were able to navigate thousands
>> of miles of open ocean without any such system and without
>> any instruments.
>>
>> 7. But like any analogy, you can't push it too far. Especially
>> because the earth is finite, but the lattice is infinite.
>>
>> Please remember point #6: people have discovered many brilliant
>> theories without any coordinate system whatever, but having a GPS-
>> like method for specifying the position of theories could be useful,
>> but it's not magic.
>>
>> For further information, please reread the tutorial on theories,
>> especially Section 1, which explains the difference between a
>> theory, a model, and the world:
>>
>> http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/theories.htm
>>
>> Also remember that the lattice is only a small piece of a much
>> bigger puzzle. A GPS device might tell you that you're close
>> to Mt. Everest, but it won't help you climb it.
>>
>> John Sowa
>