Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Ontology: is the set of material or immaterial objects, of which a theory assumes that it can make statements about them. According to classical logic, an existence assumption must be assumed. In other fields of knowledge, the question of whether relations really exist or are merely mental constructs, is not always regarded as decisive as long as one can work with them. Immaterial objects are e.g. linguistic structures in linguistics. See also existence, mathematical entities, theoretical entities, theoretical terms, reality, metaphysics, semantic web._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
P. Gärdenfors on Ontology - Dictionary of Arguments
I 24 Ontology/color space/quality dimensions/domains/Gärdenfors: these terms are theoretical constructs that are used in the systematization and explanation of our judgments. Dimensions: are cognitive constructs that should not be mapped to wavelengths or other physical objects. Whether these dimensions correspond to neuronal structures, I will not discuss. --- I 258 Ontologies/Databases/Knowledge Representation/Gärdenfors: Noy and McGuinnes (2001)(1) Thesis: There are excellent reasons to develop ontologies: To enable common understanding of information structures, In order to reuse domain-related knowledge, To make knowledge about domains explicit, To distinguish knowledge about domains from procedural knowledge, To analyze domain knowledge. Gärdenfors: the question is whether the ontologies as we know them from the Semantic Web are the appropriate means to achieve these goals. The semantics of terms is about much more, as my approach shows. Ontologies/Semantic Web: in fact, there are many different ontologies in different languages that partially overlap. Formalisms have to do with integration problems such as structural and semantic inhomogeneity, inconsistencies and redundancies. (Visser, 2004)(2). --- I 259 Ontology/Semantic Web/Gärdenfors: when we consider how people deal with concepts, then the class structures mostly capture similarities between the objects. (Goldstone, 1994(3), Gärdenfors, 2000(4)). Problem: precisely a term like similarity cannot be expressed in the ontology of the Semantic Web. 1. Noy, N. F. & McGuinnes, M. L. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report, Stanford, CA. 2. Visser, U. (. (2004) Inteligent information integration for the Semantic Web. Berlin: Springer. 3. Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125-157. 4. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Gä I P. Gärdenfors The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014 |
||
> Counter arguments against Gärdenfors
> Counter arguments in relation to Ontology
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-16