>>
>
> I believe this is essentially the same idea as that underlying the
> W3C's
> Semantic Web initiative [1]. The elegant part of that being that it
> builds
> upon existing web technologies (the SW "layer cake" [2] appearing in
> numerous slideshows ;-). The web itself becomes the knowledge map.
> Examples of micro-ontologies expressed in OWL/RDF can be found at [3]
> and
> [4].
>
Sure, I was just paraphrasing (SW). But I would distinguish between the
'map
and the territory' (phrase by Korzybsky). Otherwise, in ontology
language,
we could say, TheWeb is aKindOf Map. The web is the territory, the
ontology is the map. The Meta-Ontology carries the addresses of all the
micro-ontologies (including the ontology of Ontology) scattered all over
the territory on various servers (maybe). Schemaweb looks like they
are doing a good thing by being a repository of schema. But they
should agree on terms (schema or ontology - while both words have
other meanings in cognitive science and philosophy). (01)
I'll hold off on the OM Ontology MOO discussion for a while... I think
that is
absolutely doable. It's just the 'navigation' of an OWL file: (02)
Login: blabla
@look
You are in AnOntology, its very complex in here. Obvious exits are:
North to KnowledgeSpecification, South to DAO.
@go South
@who
Danny is sitting at his computer.
@say 'danny, what are you doing here, I thought you were going to the
party in ComputationalLinguistics tonight.
@build ComputerMusicOnotology South (making a subclass of
DigitalArtOntology)
@go South
@viewCode (gives you the code for the new class just created)
@addProperty "xyxyx" (distinquishes ComputerMusicOntology from parents)
@etc. (03)
Why do this? For an ontology designer to become 'involved,' like a work
of art, you would like to make the class 'AudioSample' a keeper - an
object
of durability/eternal, or until magnitudes are no longer specified by
numbers.
Its not top-down or bottom-up design - its inside-out.
>
>
> Two specific things I'm curious about at this point - are there any
> existing
> surveys of the use of ontologies in digital art? What is the intended
> scope
> (or how will it be determined)? (e.g. is Michaelangelo's David out of
> scope,
> but a digital photograph of it in scope?)
>
>
The Getty Vocabularies are done at:
http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/
But of course Art and Music ontologies like Art and Music curriculum
only
go so far toward our needs in digital arts, right? (04)
Also I have posted my Protege project file (just a test) - it has some
DAO
concepts that are connected to the standard upper ontology.
http://dao.cim3.net/file/pub/testProtege/
and http://dao.cim3.net/file/pub/testHtml/ for the exported html of
that project.
This is just a test for sharing data for this project. (05)
I think we might agree that working on small ontology units and using
merge
functions is great. But, there are also big problems with working
bottom-up
(no inheriting a bunch of helpful material from the upper ontologies).
More on that much later. (06)
Let's make 'scope' another thread - as it's certainly a key topic. But
the
comment on the Getty vocabularies is part of the answer. (07)
Ken. (08)
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/swandwai/slide17-0.html
> [3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabularyMarket
> [4] http://www.schemaweb.info/
> [5] http://www.foafnaut.org/
>
> (09)
Powered by MessageSoft SMG
SPAM, virus-free and secure email
http://www.messagesoft.com (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://dao.cim3.net/forum/dao-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://dao.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/dao-forum/
Shared Files: http://dao.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://dao.cim3.net/wiki/
Community Portal: http://dao.cim3.net/
To Post: mailto:dao-forum@dao.cim3.net (011)
|