Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Murray Altheim
> |
> | [...] I think of Topic Maps as a *tool* for describing ontologies,
> | not as the semantics of an ontology.
>
> That's what I think, too, and that's what I meant. Doesn't that sound
> awfully like a "meta-ontology language"? I realize I don't know what
> you mean by that phrase, but I was hoping I would understand if you
> explained how it's different from topic maps.
Well, no, not really. I mean, at a base level, if you open up your
mouth and make a noise you're making an ontological commitment. Heck,
keeping one's mouth closed is an ontological commitment (e.g., authori-
tarian governments hoping people will commit to silence).
What I mean by a "meta-ontology" language is basically a very minimal
set of commitments. Since my implementation "platform" happens to be
a topic map paradigm, I can use the tools of that paradigm to describe
my ontology, with perhaps the tools' semantics not impinging upon the
ontology I'm creating. That's the goal, anyway.
The "set of PSIs" or "set of ontological commitments" should be formal,
based in something mathematically/computationally sound, and fundamental
enough that other logics or calculi can be built upon that foundation.
> | So in that case, if I was to describe an ontology using topic maps
> | or some other graph approach (such as existential or conceptual
> | graphs), a "set of PSIs" would essentially be a set of ontological
> | commitments.
>
> Yes.
>
> | I often think of an island or a monastery. But I'm here not trying
> | to escape ontological commitment entirely, I'm simply trying to
> | minimalize it.
>
> Right. In my book this is a question of tradeoffs, and in one sense
> the RM/SAM distinction is precisely about this: how much ontological
> commitment to accept. RM has less; SAM more.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the less vs. more idea. Sometimes the
number of commitments has nothing to do with their profundity. I
would say the RM/SAM commitments are perhaps of a different order.
> | I don't think of RDF as having less commitment than topic maps, but
> | more. But they're apples and oranges in this sense.
>
> Well, they don't commit to a resource/abstract-thing distinction, nor
> to a name/relevant-resource/related-thing distinction. In my book
> that's less ontological commitment.
This is one of those quality vs. quantity things. RDF to me (and the
W3C SemWeb community in general) commit to a number of things that
I find untenable (not that I want to start that *interesting* thread
going), and I'd say the infamous W3C debates over XML namespaces,
URIs, etc. would indicate a lot of people feel some heavy commitments
are being made, even before one gets to RDF. I wish they'd hewed a
big closer to something like where GXL is currently.
> | OTOH I don't think the end of this road is useless, indeed, I was
> | kinda hoping it might serve as the ultimate use in being the basis
> | for building other things.
>
> I won't attempt to judge before I understand what you want, but that
> was my first reaction.
I can live on my island whether anyone likes it or not. :-)
Murray
......................................................................
Murray Altheim <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record