RE: SUO: A common SUO document to focus on -- RE: Focus and Volume
Adam,
> As a dictionary, quickbase looks quite useful. I'm unclear
> though as to how it might be suitable for development of the
> formal ontology itself. Could you elaborate?
Thanks for your question. Please consider some of the definitions provided
by Robert Kent at:
https://www.quickbase.com/db/6urbwpxk?act=q&qid=1
Robert has provided formal definitions for some elements of his IFF
ontology. These definitions include formulae, explanations, commentary,
links to further information, etc. The elements of IFF are specified as
belonging to ontology namespaces, which are defined and interrelated using
the SUO "Ontology Modules" database.
IFF itself is specified as an "ontology workspace", which is a name for an
overall ontology effort, within which terms are being defined. For example,
"Merged Ontology" could be an ontology workspace.
Users may define namespaces as they wish, or not use the namespace feature
if they prefer. Users may develop their own notations to indicate that a
namespace occurs within a hierarchy of namespaces, or that an ontological
term is defined within a namespace.
Likewise, users may develop their own notations to define axioms for a term,
and different notations could be used for different ontology efforts /
workspaces.
Because the database is open for access, and web-enabled, it should support
collaboration by people working together to develop a formal ontology. Each
workspace in the database is effectively a common document for people
working on development of an ontology.
Even so, the SUO Dictionary is a very new effort -- Perhaps as a common
framework for developing an ontology it is incomplete or imperfect in some
respects. I'd appreciate any feedback, comments, questions, suggestions,
that you or others may have. Quite possibly it can be improved in some way,
or maybe it is destined for failure because of some fundamental flaw that
I've overlooked -- either way, the sooner I learn this, the better.
Phil Jackson
===================================
>
> At 09:02 AM 5/12/2001 -0400, Philip Jackson wrote:
>
> >Jim,
> >
> > > These items will probably cut down on the volume, but
> without one or
> > > more documents to focus on, we won't be making much progress.
> > >
> >
> >I agree, and would like to note that we now have a web-enabled
> framework for
> >developing a common, documented definition of a standard upper ontology,
> >with examples of its use provided by Robert Kent. It's at
> >
> >https://www.quickbase.com/db/6urbwpxk
> >
> >Perhaps to make clear that it is intended to be used for this purpose, I
> >should rename it something like "SUO Common Ontology Development
> Framework",
> >insted of "SUO Dictionary" (?) -- Readers may still think it is just a
> >glossary, to be developed and used as an appendix or
> afterthought -- rather,
> >I hope that SUO members will find it a useful tool in the
> development of SUO
> >itself. It can support collaboration in development of one or
> more ontology
> >efforts, i.e. "merged ontology", "4D", "IFF", etc.
> >
> >Phil Jackson
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >"Philosophy cannot become scientifically healthy without an immense
> >technical vocabulary. We can hardly imagine our great-grandsons
> turning over
> >the leaves of this dictionary without amusement over the paucity of words
> >with which their grandsires attempted to handle metaphysics and
> logic. Long
> >before that day, it will have become indispensably requisite,
> too, that each
> >of these terms should be confined to a single meaning which,
> however broad,
> >must be free from all vagueness. This will involve a revolution in
> >terminology; for in its present condition a philosophical thought of any
> >precision can seldom be expressed without lengthy explanations." - CSP,
> >Collected Papers 8:169
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>