SUO: RE: Re: Natural Language, Thought, and Ontology, Yet Again ...
Bernard,
Thanks very much for your comments.
>
> [PJ]
>
> > I would be very interested in developing this approach, with you and
> others.
> > As I wrote, it can shift our focus from thinking in terms of a top-down
> > ontological hierachy, toward thinking in terms of how concepts can be
> > defined in terms of other concepts, and finding a kernel of primitive
> > concepts and definitional mechanisms that appear to be sufficient for
> > defining all concepts one might need in a complete ontology.
>
[BV]
> If this "paradigm shift" really comes true, please count me in. I tend to
> think that significative steps have been done in this kind of direction by
> the Topic Maps specification, and will gladly see the Topic Maps primitive
> concepts in this kernel. And maybe the kernel itself built like a
> Topic Map.
> Are there people here interested in exploring that path ?
>
To clarify, the approach I proposed is not based on topic maps. I reprint my
description of the "standard kernel ontology" approach below, with Pat
Hayes' reply to it.
I do think that work on topic maps could be useful in this approach, in at
least two ways: 1) the methods used to construct topic maps could be helpful
in identifying candidates for ontological primitives, and for identifying
how the ontology kernel could be extended to new concepts and domains; 2)
the topic map approach could be useful for visualization of the ontology
kernel and its extensions.
I listed a few examples of potential conceptual / ontological / semantic
primitives. I think these are probably a good core set to start with, but I
also think that further discussion will produce refinements and additional
candidates.
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: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:05 PM
> To: Philip Jackson
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Focus and Volume
>
>
> I agree the following is well worth trying, particularly if combined
> with John Sowa's recent idea of focussing on differences.
>
> Pat
> -----------
> >Another point of view, for people's consideration, could be the
> following:
> >
> >- Our ultimate goal is to have a "standard ontology", for supporting the
> >applications that originally motivated the formation of SUO as a working
> >group.
> >
> >- Toward that end, our goal should be to develop a "standard kernel
> >ontology", and we shouldn't worry about whether it is upper,
> middle, lower,
> >etc. One might call it a "foundation ontology", or "core ontology".
> >
> >- Our method in developing this standard kernel ontology should
> be to seek a
> >standard set of "ontological/conceptual primitives", using which
> all other
> >concepts in an ontology can be defined via some standard "concept
> >specification language" -- this language might be KIF or we
> might decide it
> >should be something else, perhaps to be developed.
> >
> >Examples of concepts we might want to use and axiomatize as conceptual /
> >semantic primitives might include:
> >
> >Entity
> >Relation
> >Agent
> >Context
> >Situation
> >State
> >Space
> >Time
> >Matter
> >Structure
> >Event
> >Action
> >Process
> >Method
> >Tool
> >Theory
> >Sign
> >Referent
> >Language
> >
> >Taking this approach shifts our focus from thinking in terms of
> a top-down
> >ontological hierachy, in which relations between concepts may be limited,
> >toward thinking in terms of how concepts can be defined in terms of other
> >concepts, and finding a kernel of primitive concepts and definitional
> >mechanisms that appear to be sufficient for defining all
> concepts one might
> >need in a complete ontology.
> >
> >Phil Jackson
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >"Metaphysics may be divided into, i, General Metaphysics, or
> Ontology; ii,
> >Psychical, or Religious, Metaphysics, concerned chiefly with the
> questions
> >of 1, God, 2, Freedom, 3, Immortality; and iii, Physical
> Metaphysics, which
> >discusses the real nature of time, space, laws of nature,
> matter, etc. The
> >second and third branches appear at present to look upon one another with
> >supreme contempt." - CSP, CP1:192
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>