FOIS 2014 - Day 1 - session 3
1) Michael Gruninger
Mathematical Foundations for Participation Ontologies (competition paper)Carmen Chui and Michael Gruninger
Representing activity occurence using geometry, representing occurences as lines, time points as points and objects as planes.
They looked at several ontologies of participation, including TSL, Gangemi's ontology and DOLCE. They could verify them using this method and prove they are isomorphic to a point, and that one is more expressive than others for specific things.
It is a highly formal method based on axiom verification, also very founded in mathematics. This may introduce bias (according to a questioner).
In my view, the work seems interesting and Gruninger made a very consistent and lively presentation (also with demonstrations) that highlighted the strenghts of this approach and proved some of his points.
Worth investigating further!
2) Nicolas Troquard
A formal theory for conceptualizing artefacts and tool manipulationsNicolas Troquard
Na approach highly based on logics -- formalization is in its essence.
It sounds interesting at a first sight but I disagree with some underlying assumptions of the work. For instance, seeing artifact as an agent (????) He justified that saying that the artifact is "doing" something for someone and "has a purpose". Come on, we are in an ontology conference, there are better ways to account for those things!!!
Also, he said something like "I like to think of artifacts as agents". But hey, ontologically, what are artifacts? Either they are agents or not... independently on how we like to think about them. According to UFO, they are social objects and that distinguishes them from intentional substances, who act, have intentions (internal commitments) and perceive events. In summary, for me artifacts are very far from being agents.
Then, he also presented another confuse concept of artifact as an anti-rigid concept, saying that all artifacts have been a non-artifact in the past. All? Why?
1) Michael Gruninger
Mathematical Foundations for Participation Ontologies (competition paper)Carmen Chui and Michael Gruninger
Representing activity occurence using geometry, representing occurences as lines, time points as points and objects as planes.
They looked at several ontologies of participation, including TSL, Gangemi's ontology and DOLCE. They could verify them using this method and prove they are isomorphic to a point, and that one is more expressive than others for specific things.
It is a highly formal method based on axiom verification, also very founded in mathematics. This may introduce bias (according to a questioner).
In my view, the work seems interesting and Gruninger made a very consistent and lively presentation (also with demonstrations) that highlighted the strenghts of this approach and proved some of his points.
Worth investigating further!
2) Nicolas Troquard
A formal theory for conceptualizing artefacts and tool manipulationsNicolas Troquard
Na approach highly based on logics -- formalization is in its essence.
It sounds interesting at a first sight but I disagree with some underlying assumptions of the work. For instance, seeing artifact as an agent (????) He justified that saying that the artifact is "doing" something for someone and "has a purpose". Come on, we are in an ontology conference, there are better ways to account for those things!!!
Also, he said something like "I like to think of artifacts as agents". But hey, ontologically, what are artifacts? Either they are agents or not... independently on how we like to think about them. According to UFO, they are social objects and that distinguishes them from intentional substances, who act, have intentions (internal commitments) and perceive events. In summary, for me artifacts are very far from being agents.
Then, he also presented another confuse concept of artifact as an anti-rigid concept, saying that all artifacts have been a non-artifact in the past. All? Why?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário