Actions

Ontolog Forum

Session Keynote
Duration 1 hour
Date/Time 22 Jan 2025 17:00 GMT
9:00am PST/12:00pm EST
5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET
Convener Gary Berg-Cross

Ontology Summit 2025 Keynote

Agenda

Nicola Guarino Ontologies as specifications of conceptualizations: correctness, precision, and accuracy

Conference Call Information

Discussion

12:06:53 Ravi Sharma : Our very warm welcome, I join Gary and Ken in welcoming you

12:17:07 Ravi Sharma :

  1. Nature of (?), objects, or reality and structure of (?), The world or domain?
  2. Cognition is a human variation, does computational ontology escape dependence on it as reality of physics tries to do?

12:20:12 Ravi Sharma : what about processes? I suppose events and processes are included?

12:20:39 Ravi Sharma : Is your function same as mathematical notion?

12:24:42 Ravi Sharma :

  1. What is meant by models so we all understand it
  2. Variety of predicates and relationships to primitives?

12:25:29 ToddSchneider : The three entities at the top of slide 8( i.e. ‘Phenomena’. ‘Presentation patterns’, relevant invariants …’) would seem to refer to those of a single person.

12:29:12 Ravi Sharma : Does the correctness of Language and implied vocabulary imply good ontology?

12:30:15 Gilles Kassel : A related question is the nature of the cognitive domain. In particular, is it a mental entity?

12:32:31 fahad khan : How does this cognitive vision fit with some of the latest research which seems to suggest that we construct our experiences to a much greater extent than previously thought (that we don’t just passively wait for stimuli), and that in the case of certain perceptions (such as those of emotions) these are very culture specific?

12:35:52 Ravi Sharma : welcome to our next two speakers, we are hoping others will kindly confirm their availability.

12:39:45 Ravi Sharma : Sanskrit has different words for ON

12:43:25 Ravi Sharma : KR then includes AI?

12:44:02 Ravi Sharma : as far as learning from previous knowledge!

12:44:27 Ítalo Oliveira : KR has always been a branch of AI.

12:46:00 Alican Tuzun : Isn't the logical representation inherently reduces the ambiguity? Slide: 16 Atleast practice shows this. Could not understand what the "computational" part really is. If we include the logic, it becomes "computational" bcause of the reasoners, hence manipulatable by the computer. So the differentia is not clear to me

12:46:23 Ravi Sharma : Is 1 established Physics, is 2 the emerging physics?

12:48:42 Ravi Sharma :

  1. How are computational ontologies we understand, related to AI?
  2. Are LLMs and Graphs (KGs) facilitators in their relationship?
  3. Where does reasoning start in this connection?
  4. Which type of Philosophy is closer to computational ontologies?
  5. Will AI alleviate computational Programing Languages?
  6. What aspects of your overview will be related to work of next speaker colleague?

12:51:15 ToddSchneider : Isn’t ‘cognition’ representative of anthropocentrism?

12:55:24 ToddSchneider : Isn’t the problem or challenge of creating a ‘useful’ ontology is too ‘uncover’ the intended interpretations and models?

12:56:05 Brand K. Niemann : Ravi, I am also interested in the dialog on the questions 1-6 that you provide.

12:56:41 Ítalo Oliveira : @Michael Gruninger, the answer to your question relies on the distinction between language and metalanguage. Some missing models are described in the metalanguage (English), not in the logical language.

13:00:29 Mike Bennett : Comment: schema.org is aimed specifically at being able to deal with words on web pages, the mistake when others treat it as though it is a usable ontology for explanations.

13:00:39 Ítalo Oliveira : A major problem in ontology development is how to guarantee the ontology’s correctness and completeness with regard to the intended models.

13:02:19 Leo : Reacted to "A major problem in..." with 👍

13:06:07 Mike Bennett : Isn't one purpose of formal ontologies, to elevate from the cognition of one person, to a potential shared congntion?

13:08:14 João Paulo A. Almeida : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

Yes, negotiate meaning or establish consensus within a certain community of ontology users

13:10:02 Alican Tuzun : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

@João Paulo A. Almeida i would say not only to ontology users, but also to the people who you are communicating with, otherwise the pragmatic aspect is lost. Because if one uses an ontology, the thing which you create also commits to do ontology, hence the people who uses it

13:10:42 João Paulo A. Almeida : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

(Indeed, I meant users in a broad sense.)

13:10:49 Bobbin Teegarden : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

Aren't shared ontologies by necessity 'vague'?

13:11:21 João Paulo A. Almeida : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

You can certainly have a very precise shared ontology...

13:11:21 Alican Tuzun : Reacted to "(Indeed, I meant use..." with 👍

13:12:27 Alican Tuzun : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

@Bobbin Teegarden sharing with whom changes the answer, isnt it?

13:13:36 Bobbin Teegarden : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

👍

13:14:33 Bobbin Teegarden : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

Changing contexts created a parallax

13:16:35 Alican Tuzun : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

as Peirce preaches 😀

13:19:18 Mike Bennett : Great Keynote! Thanks.

13:19:25 João Paulo A. Almeida : Thx Nicola

13:19:29 Alican Tuzun : Thanks Nicola!

13:19:42 Jose Parente de Oliveira : Replying to "Isn't one purpose of..."

Thanks!

13:19:44 Ralph Schäfermeier : Thank you!

Resources

Previous Meetings

 Session
ConferenceCall 2025 01 15Overview

Next Meetings

 Session
ConferenceCall 2025 01 29Track 1
ConferenceCall 2025 02 05Track 1
ConferenceCall 2025 02 12Track 1
... further results
Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2025_01_22&oldid=5185"