|
Epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge, i.e., the study of knowledge. Ontology is the theory of the nature of being and existence, i.e., the study of the nature of being and existence. We create epistemological theories to support the ontological theories that we create.
My provisioning of these definitions clarifies the exact problem facing the folks at the Ontology Working Group of the W3C, whether or not they realize this distinction between the two concepts. When abstracted to its highest level, knowledge amounts to a classification system, a dictionary of entries and descriptions, which represents one instance of our perception of the nature of being and existence, i.e., a mythology. Developing an epistemology that is closer to perfection allows us to develop an ontology that is closer to perfection.
The entries within this epistemological dictionary possess a temporal number line quality whose origin represents this instant of time, whose past events occur to the left of the origin and whose expected future event occur to the right of the origin. The set of entries that might exist to the right of the origin represent possible futures, i.e., possible past events or what we call knowledge.
Correctly, the folks at the OWG of the W3C must want to create a epistemological philosophy that allows people to abstract their respective knowledge domains at any given instant in time, i.e., frame of reference. Presumably, the OWG folks must want to use an agreed upon, well-defined XML lexicon, i.e., vocabulary and syntax, as the model of knowledge abstraction.
Again, presuming these assumptions are correct, this model will allow any given set of humans to share knowledge through their proxies of human-purposed applications and machine-purposed applications.
Current knowledge representations using XML resemble proto-languages. These proto-languages consist of morphemes, i.e., element types grunted within a syncopated rhythm. Presumably, early hominid humans spoke proto-languages. To become an expressive language, any given language requires a vocabulary and syntax, i.e., a canonical ordering of words that represent various parts of speech. If this is the goal of the OWG, then the OWG must impose a correct partitioning of element types and the OWG must impose definitions for entries within various knowledge domains.
If the OWG of the W3C desires to map one knowledge domain against another knowledge domain, the OWG should employ the tools created by some other working groups of the W3C for exact purpose of knowledge domain transmutation. XSLT and XPath are these tools.
Simply, one should inform the OWG membership that everything existing within the universe is an object, whether or not the existence of everything is within the mind of someone, within all of our minds, collectively, or within none of our minds. If everything is an object, then one can agree to abstract knowledge according to a particular vocabulary. If one desires to create an expressive language with this vocabulary, one need create syntax.
When considering objects, one must consider the descriptive qualities that determine the intrinsic nature of an object and the descriptive qualities that determine the extrinsic nature of an object. In other words, what is the essence of something and how do we perceive it. We can define the extrinsic qualities of an object, i.e., how we perceive an object by placing the object into a set of objects.
Proposed are XML fragments that might achieve the aims of the OWG of the W3C:
<object>
<features>
<feature> value </feature>
</features>
<behaviors>
<behavior> value </behavior >
</behavior>
</object>
<object_set>
<object>
<space-time-location>
<axis>
<value> value </value>
</axis>
</space-time-location>
</object>
</object_set>
We classify objects by encapsulating them into space-time fuzzy sets, by choosing random points of centrality within randomly selected frames of reference within these sets, and by differentiating between points of centrality and our object of focus. This fundamental process assumes various names that include the ordinal, cardinal, motive, structural, causal, and mutable nature of our object.
Ultimately, an object set is an object existing in disguise. An object of an object set is a feature of that object set. Stated another way, the most abstract statement expressed using XML that captures the goals of the OWG of the W3C is simply, a dictionary entry and its corresponding description (see below). The dictionary itself is nothing more than an object that can be as simple as a web page with its corresponding reference, the data structure that supports the web page or the entire World Wide Web.
<object>
<feature>value</feature>
</object>
|
Previous Message
