Re: lattice of ontology
John wrote:
''This sounds like a pretty thorough
ontology. Seems to me what is needed is
the partial order relation, a
way to determine joins and meets, and maybe
algorithims for upward and
downward movements.''
John,
pardon me with the delayed answer, somehow I missed
your brief but interesting comments finding them in the SUO archive. Maybe
because we all are becoming accustomed to the thinking that the SUO is a
pipe dream and better to leave behind the listing and all associated with
it.
Concerning the matter. You I are partly right and
partly wrong, as we all humans usually are in our conclusions and actions.
Actually, for accomplishing the high goals here
aimed we need a VERY THOROUGH ONTOLOGY asking for a thoroughgoing research of
human knowledge. To demonstrate that the task in principle is possible, we
proposed a common world knowledge classification system titled as the USECS
(Unified Standard Entity Classification System). Now anybody keeping the SUO
commitments and having a broadband connection may currently download the
system by visiting the sites: http://www.eis.com.cy or http://www.encyclopedic-intelligence (please note that the other product, USECS&UFO is
password-protected).This notice was posted before, but since we habit to
ignore first messages, i repeat it again.
The USECS (or World Directory of Things) is
presented as a lattice-ordered structure of entities limited by the
universal upper bound Entity, Thing, or Being and the universal lower
bound, Nonentity, Nothing, or Nonbeing. All the world entities are arranged
into two distinguishing levels, generic classes of things (substance, state,
change, and relation taken in general, as mass nouns) and specific classes
of things (objects, properties, events, and specific connections, as count
nouns). Your can navigate it like as a distributive lattice of
things of the finite length n by ascending from the bottom element of
Nothing (or some specific term) to the top element in several steps,
or vice versa, by descending from general things to special
meanings.
The USECS also suggests the meaningful Web
search by explaining the senses of search words or topics, namely, what sort of
entity they represent and how the terms are featured in the common
classification of semantic classes. Representing the comprehensive hierarchy of
entities and relationships, it identifies all the basic words in natural
language with their major meanings, semantic lines of descent, and offspring.
Equipped with the meaning of the search word or the structure of the search
subject or topic, you can perform more relevant and coherent online quest for
data, facts, or knowledge. Important point, unlike most comprehenive
dictionaries and encyclopedias, all the meanings of terms in USECS follow
'a standard formula of defining', having, 'a rigid pattern of
definition'.
Some hints how to search.
You can apply either the Find Dialog Box or the
Search PDF Window. Pressing Ctrl + F (Windows) or Command + F (Mac OS) opens the
Find toolbar. Pressing Shift + Ctrl + F or Shift + Command + F (Mac OS) opens
the Search PDF Window (for more details, see Adobe Essentials, search for words
in a PDF document). The whole procedure asks for the following simple steps.
Click the button Search; set a search preference, basic search options or
advanced search options while looking for central senses and primary meanings
employ a case-sensitive and whole words only options. CAPITALIZE your search,
write in capital letters, in case you are looking for general things and classes
such as ENTITY, PROCESS, SUBSTANCE, OBJECT, CHANGE, ACTION, RELATION, MATTER,
MATERIAL, CAUSE, BEING, EVENT, LIFE, ANIMAL, HUMAN, PERSON; or Science,
Mathematics, Language, etc.
While searching on a topic or subject, you get
as the results list the outlines or summary of the subject: its central meaning,
basic concepts and principles, classification, content, and relationships with
other subjects.
When looking for key words, you will get their basic senses,
semantic relatives and family lines traced as deep as from the universal term of
entity, like
DATABASE < INFORMATION < MESSAGE < COMMUNICATION <
SOCIAL RELATION < RELATION < ENTITY; or
SEARCH ENGINE < COMPUTER
PROGRAMM < SOFTWARE PROGRAM < COMPUTER CODE < CODING SYSTEM <
WRITING < WRITTEN COMMUNICATION < COMMUNICATION < RELATION <
ENTITY.
Crucially, having the knowledge product, you can
create domain ontologies in any field of knowledge, kind of activity, or sort of
practice. There are use cases how to put up generic ontologies in the fields of
Medicine, Business (Commerce), and the World Countries.
All the best,
To all Christian-minded, Merry
Christmas
Azamat Abdoullaev
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:45:53PM +0200, Azamat
wrote:
> 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
Sorry to jump into the middle of
this, I may have missed something in
previous messages, but here goes:
It's not clear to me that John is looking for a "reference frame" in
this
sense. A lattice only needs to be a poset with meet and
join. I.e., it
needs a sense of direction, and ... (but I don't want to
push this
metaphore to the limit (pun intended)).
Somehow the
following annecdote seems relevant: I was once (long long ago)
at an
after hours seminar given by E.T. Bell on some aspect of number
theory.
Prof. Bell had a minor reputation as a science fiction writer as
well as a
mathematician. One of the grad students asked him "Do the
Martians know
about prime numbers?" After a moment, Prof. Bell answered --
"They
certainly have radar, but I doubt that they have prime numbers."
>
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.
This sounds
like a pretty thorough ontology. Seems to me what is needed is
the
partial order relation, a way to determine joins and meets, and
maybe
algorithims for upward and downward movements.
>
>
Regards,
> Azamat
>
[snip]
Best,
John
Velman
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:45
PM
Subject: 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
>>
>