3 Jul 2005 05:03
RE: Re: Ontology vs. taxonomy
roebuckr <roy <at> one-world-is.com>
2005-07-03 03:03:16 GMT
2005-07-03 03:03:16 GMT
I agree with this assessment. By "form of structure", I'm considering "architecture" as the appropriate term for that form. If you consider "structure" of a thing (a named/identified thing, specifically) as being the infinitely complex (i.e., fractal), implicate arrangement of the parts of the thing (i.e., its parts and their relationships") in nature, the thing's reality, then "architecture" is the subset of that thing's infinite structure that we can: * perceive via our senses (animal and/or technically-extended) and thoughts (individual and/or group imaginings), * model mentally (perhaps reflecting the way the brain works) and/or as a record (via diagramming as in directed labeled graphs (DLG), via structured text such as RDF/OWL triples, or in unstructured text by tagging, linking, etc.), and * sometimes share (via gesture, image, word) via our body (via voice, eye, gesture, etc.) or our technological extensions of that body (e.g., tele-things such as drums to smoke signals to Internet). >From this perspective, everyone builds an "architecture" of their world (with all of their unique facets/views/vantage points), and sometimes shares that architecture with others (via stories, societal constraints, , mind maps (as taxonomies) concept maps (as rudimentary semantic models, data models, and ontologies), etc.) Thus an architecture also fits the definition of an ontology (a "model of how something works", or in more AI specific terms, a "specification of a conceptualization", or "details of a perceived process").(Continue reading)
RSS Feed