Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
On the limits of the OWL standard à [184]
Reading material [1]
Reading material [2]
Reading material [3]
Summary of the discussion up to this point à [186]
Dialogue about natural ontology and mapping to Information Models
John,
It might be that the works of Robert Rosen has set up the issues of openness, in a way that may allow the establishment to see how to move forward from what is clearly an entrenched position. I addressed the OWL (incorrect) definition of Open World Assumption at: [192]
But more generally your comments at: [193] on openness and semiotics I agree to whole heartedly. Sign systems could be the "business" of computer programs, and the interpretation of signs within a system should be what human's do (in the future "anticipatory web"). The notion of an anticipatory web (of structural information) is the Second Schools’ replacement for the First School’s notion of a Semantic Web. Like the term “ontology” the term “semantic” has come to have no meaning other than a technical and often incorrect meaning. I think you agree with me about this?
The RDBMS <--> OWL mapping debate might be the key, practically, economically, politically, since Oracle and other DB vendors have huge financial stakes in not being set aside by semantic web ( hype? ) . (Let me be clear, in the language of the second school, the DB and the OWL construction are both instances of "simple systems" as defined by Rosen. Complex systems have a different type of entailment.)
I am forwarding your note to the list, and suggest - respectfully - that the list members attend to the issues that are really of great importance for the next step in IT evolution.
I have come to know myself that learning and changing one's understanding is the most critical factor for those who are trying to define a way forward for the IT information modeling communities.
Would you allow Judith to add you to the Rosen list... to see if proper and new discussions can occur here.
A good reference about Rosen’s work is at: http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/rosen.pdf
Leot,
I am posting your abstract at: [194] and am thinking about how my understanding of Rosen, semiotics, and the current semantic web efforts might support your use of Husserl's "phenomenology" of horizons to social constructions. I see the focus of your paper as being "about" how the relational entailments in nature interact with natural category formations and entanglements between “substrate” and environmental affordances (J. J. Gibson’s term), to for autopoiesis (Maturana’s term).
We can certainly see how this happens.