Talk:Upper ontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Ontology models[edit]

(PROTON)[edit]

TODO: We should have a mention of the PROTON upper ontology model here. [1] (Olimatis (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

(DOLCE)[edit]

The DOLCE link (to the DOLCE pdf) is dead. Suggesting we use this link instead: http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html --Seymoure Frye (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


I did a Google search for "upper ontology" site:en.wikipedia.org and came up with a few more candidates.

(Gellish)[edit]

Most likely candidate.

Main article: Gellish

From the article: "The upper ontology part of Gellish currently consists of more than 1500 concepts of which about 650 are standard relation types. In addition to that the Gellish Dictionary-Taxonomy contains more than 40,000 concepts."

(MOD Ontology)[edit]

Main article: MOD Ontology

From the article: "The MOD Ontology is the name given to the upper ontology intended to support the UK Ministry of Defence's Enterprise Architecture Programme, specifically MODAF."

(OntoCAPE)[edit]

Main article: OntoCAPE

From the article: "OntoCAPE is a large-scale ontology for the domain of Computer-Aided Process Engineering (CAPE). It can be downloaded free of charge from the OntoCAPE Homepage"

(ThoughtTreasure)[edit]

Main article: ThoughtTreasure

Defunct but of historical interest?

From the article: "ThoughtTreasure contains a total of 27,000 concepts and 51,000 assertions. It has an upper ontology and several domain-specific lower ontologies such as for clothing, food, and music." and " History ThoughtTreasure was begun by Erik Mueller in December 1993. The first version was released on April 28, 1996. Mueller established the company Signiform in 1997 to pursue commercial applications of ThoughtTreasure. However, the company was unsuccessful and Signiform closed its doors in 2000. In 2000, Erik Mueller moved to IBM Research, where he was a member of the team that developed Watson (computer). On July 31, 2015, ThoughtTreasure was made available on GitHub. "

(GNOWSYS)[edit]

Least likely candidate.

Main article: GNOWSYS

GNU software to explore semantic computing that is not even released yet and whose Wikipedia article appears to have been written by the authors of the software. I found one sentence lifted wholesale from the project description page.

--Golden herring (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Quote about ontological warfare[edit]

My quote about ontological warfare was given at GCA 1999 in Philadelphia:

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/12/xml99/wrapup.html

I don't have the quote on paper, but I hope this mail is sufficient evidence Petermr (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a better link where the phrase is abstracted by a respected third party: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/12/xml99/keynote.html Petermr (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting without essay style[edit]

As of January 2012, the article had gained more essay-like wording, where it even waxed about the problems of religious schisms, warfare, societies that "have computers at all" or medieval Europe. Perhaps whole sentences should be removed or trimmed, as being off-topic tangents, which distract from the specific topic of "upper ontology". While the essay-like tone is common for academic discussions or other topics in the Theory of Knowledge, the tone of Wikipedia articles needs to be more narrow. Otherwise, there would be no end to various analogies about activities in "medieval Europe" or such. The article needs to be rewritten to keep it short and focused. See: WP:TONE. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree in general, however I think that there are a lot of good points made in the section and that these points belong in the article. The big problem is the lack of sources. Some of this critique can be found in cognitive science -- maybe George Lakoff? Hubert Dreyfus should be cited from philosophy, as his critique of knowledge-based AI is very coherent and influential. I think the post-modernist critique (i.e. the part that sounds almost political) should be covered and deserves a paragraph, but this desperately needs a citation. I don't know this literature at all. Did Foucault or Derrida ever address the problems of AI?
One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that articles must bring together viewpoints from across the academic and philosophical spectrum. This is part of WP:NPOV, and the article should have sections that address the topic from outside of its own narrow field.
Having defended the ideas, I agree that the writing sounds like the author was just making stuff up. It needs to be tightened and each point needs a source, especially in a section that discusses controversial ideas that are likely to be challenged. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)