Actions

Ontolog Forum

Session Track 1
Duration 1 hour
Date/Time 19 Feb 2025 17:00 GMT
9:00am PST/12:00pm EST
5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET
Convener Gary Berg-Cross

Ontology Summit 2025 Track 1

Agenda

Ken Baclawski

  • Title: Conceptualizing Domains
  • Abstract: The summit so far has presented some very important topics for our community. This talk will summarize and expand on some of what has transpired in the sessions as well as the forum discussions. The issues that I will present include definitions of theory, observer effects, unreasonable effectiveness, semantics of voids and the Cantor paradise. Many of these issues represent new challenges and opportunities for ontologies. I will end with an introduction to the upcoming tracks.
  • Slides
  • Video Recording
  • Discussion Recording
  • YouTube Video
  • YouTube Discussion Video

Conference Call Information

Discussion

  • 00:26:51 Ravi Sharma: cognititively real means?
  • 00:33:23 Ravi Sharma: Theory and model your views?
  • 00:33:46 João Paulo A. Almeida: I found this claim of “common-sense” conflicting with the historical claims of “realism” in the BFO literature.
    • 00:34:30 janet singer: Reacted to "I found this claim o…" with 👍
    • 00:38:05 Mike Bennett: Reacted to "I found this claim o..." with 👍
  • 00:38:14 janet singer: This is key. I think Barry’s and Jobst’s conclusions challenge the BFO framing
    • 00:38:42 João Paulo A. Almeida: Reacted to "This is key. I think..." with 👍
  • 00:38:33 Ravi Sharma: does this mean that by learning more about something we have modified its theory?
  • 00:39:56 Ravi Sharma: concept of iteration is used in S and Engg for improving the accuracy or rediscovering true nature or reality?
  • 00:41:13 Ravi Sharma: sample bias and sample being limited are two reasons that cn also alter determination of reality?
    • 00:41:41 Bobbin Teegarden: Reacted to "sample bias and samp..." with 👍
  • 00:41:34 Mike Bennett: This loop between ontology and reality has a bearing on digital twins also.
    • 00:43:28 João Paulo A. Almeida: +1 to minding this loop. The deleterious effects that Ken mention remind me of this “Little Britain” skits in which the clerk types something and says: “Computer says no!”
      • 00:43:57 Mike Bennett: Reacted to "+1 to minding this l..." with 😂
  • 00:42:10 Ravi Sharma: round trip ontologies will be relevant for static entities and relationships
  • 00:44:05 janet singer: And changing the reality to conform to the specification is realization in engineering process
    • 00:44:47 João Paulo A. Almeida: Replying to "And changing the rea..." True. It might be the point of (business process/organizational) reengineering
    • 00:46:13 Bobbin Teegarden: Replying to "And changing the rea..." Janet: true, but always myopic (based on perspective or context...)
    • 00:46:18 Mike Bennett: Replying to "And changing the rea..." Also Ken's OODA Loop.
    • 00:47:58 Bobbin Teegarden: Replying to "And changing the rea..." ... which are always incomplete... unless they're 42... ;0)
    • 00:52:28 janet singer: Replying to "And changing the rea…" 42 could be a specification but difficult to realize in a new instance…
  • 00:46:11 Ravi Sharma: wigner is the early example of using Group theory in Quantum Phenomena.
  • 00:48:13 Ravi Sharma: How do we explain that math only goes so far and then we have to resort to computations for real physics problems, same probably in chemistry and Engineering.
  • 00:48:59 Ravi Sharma: could Dirac Delta Function be thought od as a distribution as in statistics
  • 00:51:26 Ravi Sharma: ken I have articulated like Katherine about uncertainty ontologies in past.
  • 00:53:07 Ravi Sharma: in what major ways has math changed over a century?
    • 00:56:13 João Paulo A. Almeida: The answer is “no”!
  • 00:57:00 janet singer: Does a neighborhood of ‘doing’ amplifying understanding of what something ‘is’ imply that semantics is incomplete without pragmatics?
  • 00:57:22 ToddSchneider: Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne of the Anglican Church of Ireland) argued against Isaac Newton's doctrine of absolute space, time and motion in De Motu (On Motion), published 1721.
  • 01:02:58 Alican Tüzün: Based on my short experience, it is nearly imposible not to update the ontology, especially if the value wanted to be consistent or better for practice
  • 01:03:26 Alican Tüzün: Especially if one uses inductive logic along with it
  • 01:05:29 ToddSchneider: Is it the case that any attempt at a ‘theory’ (of something) is necessarily not well founded (in the mathematical sense)?
  • 01:08:04 Alican Tüzün: Theory based on induction will always be due to two problems; description and judgement
  • 01:11:23 Bobbin Teegarden: Mike: even 'qualia' interpretation depends on observer framework
    • 01:14:38 Mike Bennett: Replying to "Mike: even 'qualia'..." Yes - sight and sound come in, and the resulting activation flows into the shapes created by our concepts.
  • 01:15:51 ToddSchneider: Perhaps instead of ‘common sense’, ‘common sensation’?
  • 01:17:11 ToddSchneider: Should the question be how can ontologies, in particular upper ontologies, aid in explanation?
  • 01:21:12 ToddSchneider: ‘Common sense’ =def. “good sense and sound judgment in practical matters” (from New Oxford American Dictionary)
  • 01:23:34 Alican Tüzün: Need to leave early for another meeting. Thanks for the talk!
  • 01:27:26 Gary Berg-Cross: phenomenology a philosophical approach that considers and discusses awareness and the objects of that direct experience.
  • 01:27:49 Bobbin Teegarden: ... but which perspective of physical reality: the faster we go the flatter we get... until we splat against (the speed of) light?
  • 01:28:09 janet singer: So is ‘reality’ to be identified with what we humans can sense directly? As opposed to supplementing with material and mathematical machines
  • 01:33:40 João Paulo A. Almeida: Thanks, Ken
  • 01:34:29 Gary Berg-Cross: You might think of BFO as commonsense in that it is based on asking people in different areas what they typically believe and have found useful to operate in the meso world.
    • 01:35:14 Mike Bennett: Replying to "You might think of B..." that would make BFO a concept ontology not a realist ontology.
  • 01:34:48 Gary Berg-Cross: Forguson and Gopnik (1988) also characterized commonsense as a “shared web of beliefs, whatever their specific content may be, which we as adult rational humans individually hold true, which we mutually attribute to one another, and which we presuppose as a condition of interpreting one another’s behavior”
  • 01:37:06 Tatiana Poletaeva: Thank you all a lot for the great presentation and discussion!

Resources

Previous Meetings

 Session
ConferenceCall 2025 02 12Track 1
ConferenceCall 2025 02 05Track 1
ConferenceCall 2025 01 29Track 1
... further results

Next Meetings

 Session
ConferenceCall 2025 02 26Track 2
ConferenceCall 2025 03 05Track 2
ConferenceCall 2025 03 12Track 2
... further results
Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2025_02_19&oldid=5219"