Some essential remarks on interpretation,
definition and conceptualization contexts
HID is at
- intelligent agent's (IA) perception and comprehension properties (capacities)Remarks: In such sense an ontology depends on:
* role of IA; different roles require different ontologies.
* preselected domain-of-activity of IA, denominated D
* emotional "filters" and "amplificators" of IA's reasoning processes.
Therefore we have more or less local ontologies, goal-oriented ontologies, role-dependent ontologies,
shared ontologies (for cooperating IAs), emotional, and so on.
For example, for a robot which distinguishes only white and black colors,
only these two colors exist. Therefore its ontology does not include such
concepts as red , blue , ...
The above TOGA idea has been modified and expressed by J.Sowa*, as follows:
"The subject of ontology is the study of the categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain. The product of such a study, called an ontology, is a catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about D. The types in the ontology represent the predicates, word senses, or concept and relation types of the language L when used to discuss topics in the domain D. "
The main difference between these two definitions relates to the fact that Sowa, according to Minsky**, assumes a language-based semantic network as an initial platform for the conceptualization of ontology, when in TOGA, the fundamental conceptualization platform is not a language but an abstract objects network (abstract objects graph with relations and changes), included in TAO ( Theory of Abstract Objects)***. This last perspective generalizes sources of information, is language independent, every semantic network is a network of abstract objects, and also enables to conceptualize images, other products of IA senses and "imagination" .
It is interesting to remark that semantic-network is graphically represented by an abstract-object network, but in order to describe an abstract object network we use a semantic network. In other words, in meta-ontology we may use, either semantic or abstract object network. Anyway, this choice is not the ontological but epistemological problem.
(*) [ http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/index.htm, visited 14 Mar.2007, for more: John F. Sowa, Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations, Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA, ©2000. Actual publication date, 16 August 1999]
(**) Marvin Minsky. Semantic Information Processing, MIT Press, 1968.
(***) TAO is a sub-theory of TOGA
Everything which enables IA to change a pre-selected domain-of-activity and is representable in the concepts of TAO (Theory of Abstract Objects, which is a component of TOGA), can be considered as existing.
In general, it is rather difficult to obtain consensus on the extrapolation of the concept existence over and outside of the human perception of the human life and the physical world.
Here, we may accept a relative, domain-dependent notion of 'existence'.
For example, in an abstract domain defined as the set of real numbers, the number 2.34658921897 exists.
1) Ontology of an intelligent entity (=IA ) can be changed only either by itself or by changes of its perception system.
2) The concept 'ontology' is closely related to the concept 'epistemology'
- From the TOGA perspective the concept 'epistemology' has also relative notion and, as 'ontology', is
applicable to natural, artificial and generalized abstract IAs.
3) From the philosophical point of view, where absolute solutions and
explanations are searched, we can
4) Absolute meaning of existence
3. Knowledge, Cognitive Knowledge & Ontology
Most frequent, in the subject matter literature, notion of knowledge
From the cognitive perspective knowledge and preferences consist segments of reasoning chains of IA related to the domain D, for example:
Knowledge1 --> Knowledge2--> Preferences1 --> Goal --> Knowledge3 --> ... --> KnowledgeN.
From such perspective in TOGA there are distinguished descriptive knowledge and operational knowledge.
The first are expressed as : relation rules, physical laws, theories, models.
The second are expressed as : algorithms, methods, instruction, procedures, they specifications and cause IA's
Meta-remarks on definition-making: Let us mention, in TOGA, the concept
in order to have a sense, has to be goal-oriented (in explicite or implicit
From the linguistic perspective, a cognitive knowledge is a knowledge
constructed and applied in cognitive recognition and reasoning processes.
- UNESCO - ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS (EOLSS) - RESEARCH PROJECT:
Knowledge Management, Organizational Intelligence and
Learning, and Complexity
conceptualization." requires a serious effort for the formulation of an acceptable computational definition of a
specification of a conceptualization.
and they are "encapsulated" together in the other triple
(goal, conceptualization system, methodology).
- Therefore all of them are either explicitly or implicitly goal-oriented (teleological).
4. A Meta-Ontological Perspective - Some Principles and Definition
This domain is recently strongly investigated in software engineering according to its particular needs and technologies, see for example: "...IFOMISís Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a philosophically inspired top-level ontology (Grenon and Smith, forthcoming) successive phases, or temporal parts. Entities that occur are processes or events ..." [Ontological Theory for Ontological Engineering: Biomedical Systems Information Integration James M. Fielding, Jonathan Simon, Werner Ceusters , Barry Smith, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2004), Whistler, BC, 2-5 June 2004]. The recent product in this field is "Protègè" (2005), http://protege.stanford.edu/.
- From the systemic, more general than software engineers perspective,
meta-ontology refers to the most universal domain-independent
concepts used by humans but which have their concrete representations (in
frame of top classes of observables: objects, relations,
- according to TOGA) in, so called, the real world.
Meta-ontology is based on the extrapolation of common properties
of local ontologies to an abstract cognitive/ mental space.
5. Ontology Building Methodology (OBM)
In TOGA, methodology of an ontology building follows exactly the TOGA third component, i.e. Methodological RUles System (MRUS) .
TOGA is a proposal of a systemic computational top-down goal-oriented knowledge ordering. Therefore it requires not only an accurate top-down choice of concepts but also an explicitly accepted heuristic definition-making rules.
TOGA Definition-Making starts from most general concepts with a maximal systemic denotation domain and with a minimal set of necessary attributes used in definients. It means, the concepts selected and defined at the begining have to be before used in the specification of the initial goal of the intended work.
The terms used in definition should be either axiomatic or should be concepts from another formal theory, or have to be just included in this ontology.
.The top-down specialization and decomposition of the goal require specialization and modifications of definitions. Therefore
OBM has to be an continuous incremental and iterative task during every complex project.
The same domain abstract or real object can be seen from different perspectives , distance and using different tools. Every such description/definition is different, and goal-oriented approach and consensus building becames essential for the sucess of your project (MRUS) .
More information are included in: TOGA Systemic Approach to the Global Specification - Sophocles Project Report, 2002 (pdf)
6. Conclusive remarks ( but not the final)
- Every, even most abstract concepts have been constructed bottom-up basing on human experience but therefore their applications have to be done top-down in the real-world abstracion hierarchy.
- Notions of abstract concepts are based on human socio-cognitive
consensus concentrated around of a "shared utility". It is also valid for
the previously discussed concepts, as meta-ontology.
- We have to remember,
- From the TOGA perspective, the difference between meta-ontology and meta-epistemology relies on the initial axioms arbitrarrely assumed, usually in an implicie manner (here, a web page in preparation).
- In the both cases we need to use IPK conceptualization framework
to the conceptualization of ontology and epistemology of intelligent
- Results of the Google search illustrate current applications
of the above discussed basic terms:
The examples of:
related to the TOGA meta-ontology pages, see:
search on the Web:
For reference: A.M.Gadomski, Ontology and Knowledge: Meta-ontological Perspective According to the TOGA Meta-theory. e-Pages of the Meta-Knowledge Engineering Server, http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/Ont-know.htm (since July, 2002, last comments added: Mar. 2007).
© 2002-2007, ENEA. Adam Maria Gadomski. All rights reserved. No permission is granted to download and save professional images, code, or any other material from these pages other than for viewing and citation purposes. These are the MKEM Server research pages, representing the opinions of the contributors, but not necessarily of ENEA.
|Go back to: Meta-Knowledge Engineering & Management Server | HID Research Group (CAMO-ENEA)||