Re: Re[2]: SUO: Context
Leonid --
Among other things, you have raised again an interesting point about the
many ontological efforts that are currently ongoing. It is interesting to
me whether IEEE SUO will ever undertake a specific effort to extract,
compare and contrast key concepts from these efforts as a way of building a
solid, central corpus of content. In other words, will we stand on the
shoulders of our contemporaneous colleagues, as well as the historical
giants of philosophy?
Doug McDavid
Certified Executive Consultant
Business Innovation Services - IBM, US
Member of IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru> on 11/22/2000 08:36:59 PM
Please respond to Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
cc: "Norbert E. Fuchs" <fuchs@ifi.unizh.ch>, sharov <sharov@vt.edu>,
sofia@gia.ist.utl.pt, standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re[2]: SUO: Context
Duog , & All
Suppose some notes around Norbert and Sofia references will be helpful .
1. Such terms as "sender" , "receiver" and the "context" problem once
more show that
the Peirce's third branch of the semiotics (pragmatics) must be taken into
account .
Sender and receiver correlate very close with the UML's "actor" and with
the
biosemiotics "agent" . Suppose it will be interesting now to look once
more at the
"new semiotics" messages http://ltsc.ieee.org/logs/suo/msg01123.html
http://ltsc.ieee.org/logs/suo/msg01252.html,
http://ltsc.ieee.org/logs/suo/msg01727.html
2. The ontology of ontologies problem has a "standard" evolution feature,
namly - there are multiple "points of development" already. I know about
ten projects . It is intersting to comare them . Of course they have much
more
like features than the ontologies of "the first order" . Such the EPISTLE
Core model (and founded on it the AP221 of ISO10303 and the inherited
IIDEAS project)
has many like features with the OIL core model and the UML metamodel . Or
the Unisys
UREP and new Oracle high level metamodels have very like foundations (UML,
XML, XMI, CWM,
MOF ) . Or the "(ONTO)2 Agent" brokers are very like to the Boeing's
"Semantic plug-and-play" brokers etc.
Suppose the vendors' much more "deployment oriented" approach could be
"dangerous" for
non vendors projects because of the first ones practice with may be less
deep ontology
and semantic will be more wide spread .
Such for example where is the CSMF project now ? Or more deep than the
UML's metamodel the EPISTLE Core model much more less in use.
Suppose besides a more close liaison with the vendors a taking into account
more deep
roots of the "new semiotics" will be helpful. Also for more flexibility of
SUO not
only FOL but a using of some elements of SOL will be helpful(we use it
in our repository mentioned in http://ltsc.ieee.org/logs/suo/msg01123.html
).
Some notions of an ontology itself must be more carefully "revised" from
the semiotics
point of view . " The major fault of logical positivism is in considering
predicates as ontology. They are just tools as any other words in human
language.
They would not exist if humans did not INVENT them to DESCRIBE
the world and to LIVE in it." (Alexei Sharov).
Leonid