[iaoa-education] Updates related to the term list discussion at [ontolog-forum] == RE: Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology

Mon Jul 10 21:22:09 CEST 2017

Hi all,

I'm having some data connection issues with my laptop, but did make a draft disclaimer, attached. Does that sound reasonable to take away the concerns raised?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image1.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/attachments/20170710/5a77ffa6/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------

Regards,
Maria 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Jul 2017, at 03:56, Frank Loebe <frank.loebe at informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sandra, Todd and all,
> 
> just briefly now: I also noted John Sowa's message on Sat and felt the need/intent to respond to that, but couldn't get started on that before earlier today. What I did so far is to add a bit more of a disclaimer to the term list main page [1] and ended up starting [2] (though a bit more could be said there). I'd further plan to update the "Ontology" term page with more variants (e.g., from Maria's entry or a paper by Guarino, which discusses a number of definitions; also trying formatting based on the most recent discussions), to give an example of "where to go". Then I'd plan to point John Sowa to those updates and invite him to make his intended contributions.
> 
>  --> @Todd:
>      Sorry for "overriding" your very recent edits on [1]. I tried
>      to maintain the sense, but shorter on [1], and moved a bit over
>      to [2].
> 
>   --> @all:
>       I'd be interested in whether "my" goal specifications on [2]
>       match your intentions (sufficiently), before I'd post the page at
>       [ontolog-forum].
> 
> 
> > [TS]
> > It was meant only to cover the intersection of the different
> > disciplines that contribute to the current field of ontology.
> 
> E.g., here, I wonder whether it is still the case to focus on that intersection only (which I believe was true w.r.t. initial motivations). I think we had also discussed the list as a pre-stage to a glossary for the intended textbook, which would allow for including terms from "pure" applied ontology. In any case, we could start/continue focusing on the "intersection terms" first.
> 
> 
> > [TS]
> > Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the
> > 'current ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'.
> > Though both have similar intent, their domains and scope are
> > different.
> >
> > Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better?
> 
> It's not fully clear to me where you would like to clarify the difference? In a response message or in the wiki itself? Perhaps a statement could be added on [2] and then pointed to in a response.
> 
> 
> Any other comments on the updates are welcome. I could imagine that the disclaimer of the early stage of development may seem counterproductive (w.r.t gaining users/interested parties). OTOH, I hope it clarifies the situation and avoids misunderstandings such as assuming the list to be a comprehensive and consented result already, instead of being just a beginning (at the moment).
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> Frank
> 
> 
> [1] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList
> 
> [2] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList-About
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From:    Todd Schneider <tjschneider at covad.net>
> Sent:    2017.07.09 21:20 +0200
> To:      IAOA Education Committee <iaoa-education at ovgu.de>
> Subject: Re: [iaoa-education] Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology
> 
>> Sandra,
>> Thank you for forwarding John's post. I'm not sure everyone on the committee
>> is a member of the forum.
>> One point that I've failed to get across is the intent of the list of terms: It was
>> meant only to cover the intersection of the different disciplines that contribute
>> to the current field of ontology.
>> Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the 'current
>> ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. Though both have
>> similar intent, their domains and scope are different.
>> Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better?
>> Todd
>>> On 7/8/17 5:03 PM, Sandra Lovren?i? wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> below are new suggestions from ontolog forum.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Sandra
>>> 
>>> FOI signature
>>> **
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Faculty of organization and informatics <http://www.foi.hr>*Assoc. Prof. Sandra Lovren?i?, Ph.D.*
>>> *University of Zagreb, Faculty of organization and informatics
>>> *Pavlinska 2, HR-42000 Vara?din, Croatia
>>> tel: +385 42 390 851; fax: +385 42 213 413; mob: +385 98 243 341
>>> e-mail: sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr <mailto:sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr>
>>> http://www.foi.unizg.hr/eng/staff/sandra.lovrencic
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:    Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology
>>> Date:    Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:12:30 -0400
>>> From:    John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net>
>>> Reply-To:    ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com
>>> To:    ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Todd, Pat H, David P, and Chris P,
>>> 
>>> Todd
>>> > From a practical perspective l'll be pushing for consensus
>>> > on common terminology (i.e., see the IAOA terminology list
>>> > http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList  .
>>> 
>>> That goal is not bad.  But those of us who have looked at that list
>>> have already reached a consensus:  Kill it before it multiplies.
>>> 
>>> Pat
>>> > this is a disaster. Both the selection of terminology to standardize
>>> > and the definitions offered are completely idiosyncratic...
>>> > To standardize on these would be simply to create another useless
>>> > silo which will be ignored by some and enthusiastically treated
>>> > as a gospel by others.
>>> 
>>> Chris
>>> > I agree with David and Pat - this really needs quite a lot of work
>>> > to make it usable.
>>> 
>>> David
>>> > I agree 100% with Pat wrt the terms list... a few there are mostly
>>> > really terrible (i.e. they would make the current situation worse)...
>>> > the definition of ?Ontology?... will do nothing but add confusion:
>>> > > Ontology:  An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising
>>> > a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended
>>> > to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and
>>> > certain relations between them
>>> 
>>> That is the worst definition of ontology I have ever seen.  If you type
>>> "define ontology" to Google, the first thing you get is much better:
>>> > 1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
>>> > > 2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that
>>> >    shows their properties and the relations between them.
>>> > >    Example: "what's new about our ontology is that it is created
>>> >    automatically from large datasets"
>>> 
>>> The Merriam-Webster definition, with one correction, would also be good:
>>> > 1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of
>>> >    being.  Ontology deals with abstract entities.
>>> > > 2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things
>>> >    that have existence.
>>> 
>>> The obvious correction is to say "both physical and abstract entities"
>>> instead of just "abstract entities".
>>> 
>>> However, most dictionaries protect their copyrights.  If we copy too
>>> many definitions from them, IOAO could be sued.  Fortunately, the
>>> _Century Dictionary_ is out of copyright.  And not by accident, the
>>> definition of 'ontology' was written by Charles Sanders Peirce:
>>> > The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates
>>> > the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances
>>> > and accidents.
>>> 
>>> For Peirce's full definition and quotations by Watts, Hegel, and
>>> Hamilton, see the attached file, ontology.jpg.
>>> 
>>> For other words, seehttp://www.global-language.com/century/  and ask
>>> for the jpg.  That returns the full page that includes the definition.
>>> 
>>> Recommendation:  For each term in the IOAO list, cite several
>>> definitions and their sources.  To provide a broader range of
>>> options, include the version from the Century Dictionary and
>>> any others that may be available.
>>> 
>>> Then for each term, provide a comment area for members of IOAO or
>>> Ontolog to state their suggestions, preferences, and revisions.
>>> A few rounds of revisions, commentary, and voting should produce
>>> some good definitions.
>>> 
>>> I'll volunteer to do the following:
>>> 
>>>   1. Produce a list of definitions that can be posted alongside the
>>>      current crop that is now polluting the IOAO list.
>>> 
>>>   2. I'll start with a glossary developed in 1997 by the NCITS T2
>>>      ontology working group:http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm
>>>      That was a good group.  Seehttp://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/
>>> 
>>>   3. And I'll also add any definitions from the _Century Dictionary_
>>>      to that list.  Like the definition for 'ontology', many of them
>>>      were written by Peirce.
>>> 
>>>   4. Then it would be useful if somebody would add a "blog" option so
>>>      that members of Ontolog and IAOA could make suggestions about which
>>>      definitions to extend/merge/revise/delete.
>>> 
>>> John
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post:      mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de
> Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/
> List Info:    https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/
> Comm. Wiki:   http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/
> IAOA website: http://iaoa.org