October 3, 2005
Center of Excellence Proposal
à
Communication to a Semantic
Web standards related e-forum
A focused position statement
on the notions that has been briefly discussed here regarding the artificiality
of semantic web ontologies is at [bead 188 and 189]
Paul,
After we got cut off today I couldn't call you back, because your
number didn't register properly on my cell phone.
I can see that you have a very broad approach to issues of knowledge,
but my own projects tend to be fairly narrowly focused on specific goals. I would certainly be interested if you have
some specific suggestions for representation or reasoning. I have too many ongoing projects to follow
leads or general suggestions or references.
Pat
This note shows a dimension to the problem that Mitre and other organizations have. To a very great extent, this problem is well illustrated by the note send to the BCNGroup from a leading “knowledge scientist”, (ontologist). Many other beads in the many bead threads of the BCNGroup digital Glass bead Games have similar illustrations.
The specific suggestions come in Chapter 6:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm
with an extension of Peirce and Mills, and in the Roadmap for US Customs
http://www.bcngroup.org/area1/2005beads/GIF/RoadMap.htm
I have noticed some things about your presentations that I
agree with, but I would focus on aggregation of semantic primitives into
emergent ontological structures rather than on the questionable notion of an
upper ontology. In the RoadMap you see
that I do use an upper abstract ontology.... but this is in the context of a
stratified theory where middle ontologies are used and thought about in a
different way than is the upper.
Comments will be posted into this “glass bead game”.
Paul Prueitt
Taos, New Mexico