[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Thomas,
Thomas said:
John Sowa has written that it takes three steps to moel the world, not two
1) A lattice of theorems (i.e., a purely mathematical structure)
2) A model, that stands between the world and the lattice.
3) The world itself.
In this scheme, the model maps to the lattice of theories in a binary,
true/false manner, while the model maps to the world in a fuzzy way.
Thus, OWL classes would map between theorems and the model. There would
be no need to try to force the model to map to the world in a crisp,
true/false way.
I don't know if this has been helpful, but at least it is interesting.
Didier replies:
Let me think about it. What you are saying is interesting and I need to look
at this statement from different angles. If you mean that a document using a
particular vocabulary has somewhere a particular reference to a particular
ontology, we can honestly say that the document provides some information
about the model behind its information unit classification and the
relationship these information units have with each other. If this is the
case, I am having tremendous difficulties to see where the linkage between
the resource and its ontology is located? At the end of its namespace URI?
If yes, the semantic web starts to be operational. A resource would then
provide:
a) A classification of its information units
b) A reference to the model behind this classification.
Is there any talks in that direction?
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
