Monday, December 19, 2005
Lattice of ontologies
Footnotes made by Prueitt on Ballard’s communication
1) You are not implying here
that context is NOT also an artifact of situated-ness, something that occurs in
even non-living systems such as elementary particle interactions.
Elaboration (Paul):
Of course not. In fact, the
information theory that Ballard works with is grounded in a type of real
physics, as discussed by Werbos, Prueitt and Ballard in previous
communications.
2)Paul: In this sense, the
pattern of relationships (defined in some fashion) is the context for the
elements of a pattern.
3)I feel that I know that you
are talking about using a heuristic, that asks the question; it this part of
the pattern of relationships “part” of the same concept as this other part of
the pattern of relationships.
4)Precisely. The requirement is to separate the parts of
a pattern so that there becomes a one to one correspondence between patterns
and “concepts” or “taxa” (if one is working in bioinformatics). In bioinformatics, the unit fir comparison
and organization is called a “taxon”.
5) UDEF naming conventions
recognize this contextualization issue.
6) We need a
definition for mediating structure.
Elaboration
(paul): I conjecture, based on my past history
with Sowa and Ballard, that the mediating structure is the set of semantic
primitives; 12 in Sowa’s case and 18 in Ballard’s case. If this conjecture is valid, then the
tri-level architecture I have proposed helps to bring that mediating structure
to the measurement of relationships existing due to some instrumentation;
(linguistic parsing and latent semantic indexing in the case of free text
semantic extraction) or (use of microarray hardware with some type of
hierarchical similarity analysis in the case of gene expression analysis).