upper ontology

To create an upper ontology (using the computer science definition of the word) is the ambition of philosophers and programmers who recognize that human communication and artificial intelligence can both benefit from using a language in which one may infer rigorously and can defer empirically to demonstrably better performers. That is, a language that has both internal consistency and external consistency over known problem domains and especially the extremely difficult driving problems.

the stone men in their silicon valley

Or, put in more usual terms, "logically and scientifically rigorous" as if the people who study logic or science have any insight into this or know to whom or what to defer. They don't They are no wiser than anyone else in this key regard. Accordingly a LANL ontology is far less likely to lead to positive life-value, since, its ontological distinctions are not deliberately chosen to enhance any such life value, but simply to favour an abtract sort of "efficiency" - is this dangerous?

Like much research in linguistics an "analysis as synthesis" approach dominates: The upper ontology ties fractured sub-ontologies (often called a "taxonomy") through as-loose-as-is-feasible coupling (resulting in what is called "weak ontology"). This requires upper ontologies to be rigourous within their most demanding core domains of application yet versatile in their definition at the edges:

Factions of a political party, for example, create loose ties of "us" versus "them" by understanding who eats dinner together - allowing for overlaps. Likewise agendas determine who waits and who pays.

set-theoretic assumptions

Most philosophy or even cognitive science models are not suitable for any kind of analysis or automation or use directly in a command hierarchy.

Therefore a current upper ontology must usually model "conceptual spaces as an enrichment of traditional set-theoretic semantics." (Jensen, Nillson, 2004), who claim that "compositionality in the limited sense of set intersection can be preserved in most, if not all, linguistic cases, e.g., prepositional attachment to nouns, genitive constructions, and noun-noun compounds, as well as non-intersective adjectives." This very drastically simplifies the problems of assigning sentence meaning and ontological semantics and apparently works up to the most complex of noun phrases.

However verb phrases are less well understood, prepositions very poorly understood. Issues the living ontology addresses very directly. See the list of process terms and all control verbs, and the outline of the most difficult problem: all human command verbs.

Creating a rational and reliably machine interpretable command language assumes that current knowledge about the universe and human affairs is sufficient to develop the basic building blocks of a language capable of expressing all argument at least in some domain, e.g. sustainable trades and infrastructural capital. This may be overly optimistic, especially when trying to integrate an entire polity or military system,
including human components who are as complex as cognitive science says.

large corpus, deep divisions

Even to make such a claim requires gathering a very large number and variety of such arguments, e.g. in a standard open politics argument structure, and then inspecting the rigour of the systems by which they self-organize into mindsets: not just the choice of issue/position/argument, but the rulesets by whichevidence/source/authority is provided to back argument. Such projects as FrameNet have often provided ground for this kind of research, but without necessarily the rigorized expression of debates and disagreements.

Finally the adversarial process that is common to all Western academia, legal codes and politics as usual, must be itself modelled at least to a predictable list of process terms - no short cuts. Unfortunately adversarial process tends to be case-based reasoning and backwards-looking and to assume that a single pair of advocates are concerned to present the full complexity of the situation, e.g. in an issue challenge. These assumptions are all weak in various ways, and they resemble arguments about, for instance, judicial activism as a way to set law.

Even such distasteful topics as Canadian politics as usual and why Ontario lies must be examined in depth especially for emergent conceptual metaphor such as the mad dog and attack dog, wingman and zero wing - why are dogs on the ground and birds in the air?

Four Pillars view

For those who accept the Four Pillars, the search begins with the commit verbs used between people and command verbs used to control technologies of communication - basis of the social capital and the instructional capital by which social networks and ultimately power networks are formed. These help form a "we", where "who's we" is examinable and traceable and can be challenged as per which commitment applies. This active ontology - see below - tends to a living ontology to the degree it respects and increases price of life and indeed price of Earth in an service economy - based on nature's services.

The seeming impossibility of such a task does not make it pointless to try. Human communication is essential to decision making and problem solving, especially collective ethical choices as in politics.

improving decisions

The quality of that communication is improvable - there are objectively better and worse ways to structure argument and to listen and these can be measured. To create and adopt a simplified, rationalized and accurately defined language giving benefits to its users in the way of improved communication and decisionmaking ability has substantial value, whether the result is "perfect" or not. Indeed, any improvement at all may be a moral necessity.

Political decision making - especially the accelerated e-democracy and e-government that applies in the Troll Age - is inherently one of the areas of activity that could most benefit from an improved upper ontology.

postmodern, cognitive, open political virtues

"While there is no single agreed metaphysics, the very existence of long standing arguments in the field shows that there are a number of models that do not have fatal flaws."

In no field is this truer than political philosophy.

"While there is not one single true upper ontology, there are in fact several good ones that may be created." This observation helps ground a postmodern politics in which no one God's Eye view is allowed to predominate.

In the context of representative democracy such multiple point of view might for instance be defined by political party internal discourses, e.g. Green Party of Canada Living Platform. "The benefits of standardization for communication and sharing suggest that practical system implementors should consider adopting a common upper ontology." This observation helps ground a more cognitive politics in which the collective intelligence of a political party is taken as a possible substitute for personal cognition or pairwise cognition: "we". In this variant of the postmodern view, there are multiple views, but all are subject to one upper ontology describing the process.

A cognitive science of mathematics and the code as speech conceptual metaphor also ground a reflexive intranet solution to the problems arising in these models of open politics. If code is like speech in the technical and linguistic sense, it could be "halfway between mathematics and language", where there are operators or verbs subject to a common reflexivity.

Some tensegrity to explain how a reflexive verb is like but unlike a reflexive user interface like but unlike a reflexive property in mathematics, might provide the basis of a common view of cognition that all models of politics share. It might further define pronoun, commit verb and some means to further self-organize political virtues that are pragmatically necessary to make politics as usual bearable at all. This might constitute a praxis - an active ontology - exploiting which in open politics is a driving problem behind the living ontology.

living ontology and international policy

The W3 OWL and Microsoft.NET ontologies are the most commonly used, but have poor name discipline for any particular application. "An OWL ontology uses URIs to name classes, datatypes, properties, and individuals" http://ontcompdotnet.projects.semwebcentral.org/Translation.htm - this is a reflexive intranet best practice.

For Canadian users of Living Platform itself the living ontology is the upper ontology in use and is how LivingPlatform.CA itself is specified. The Efficient Civics Guild maintains it according tothe above assumptions, plus some about naming conventions for international Green Party policy and naming conventions for international simultaneous policy plus the GFDL corpus namespace conventions. Because of the complexity of the interaction of these, it is imposed by ECG Master fiat without explanation or discussion, where the project is about to fail for not doing so. Ontology issues are not political - they are operational and not subject to IPA with unqualified people without ontology skills.

handling argument and distinction

The disagreements about these can be profound and divisive and stress the issue/position/argument structure - may well exceed what can be effectively argued in this format given the risk of endless regress into definitions and ontological distinctions that are always disputable.

Even those seeking intellectual integrity will not always agree on foundation ontology questions, making a foundation ontology necessary even to get started. Such an ontology will be founded on some culture which simplifies, but also confuses:

"Most disagreement about the viability of an upper ontology can be traced to the conflation of ontology, language and knowledge" - usually called common sense - which is specific to a given cultural context and possibly even to a given political party or ideology. As ontology itself replaces the assertions or axioms of common sense, so can ethical codes and legal codes based on them replace simplistic moral codes, e.g. Ten Commandments.

seeking breakthrough

A living upper ontology capable of making the real legal and political distinctions that are made especially by the activists who critique the current global ethic would seem to be a necessity to achieving any great breakthrough:

Attempting such an ontology is the first step to legal reform, electoral reform, accounting reform and monetary reform. If it fails, then, no agreement that could impose such high human impact changes must exist, and therefore, the failure of agreement is the failure of consensus. There might in fact be no community at all, merely an epistemic community fooling itself that there is a consensus sufficient to motivate a risky action.

"Some additional concerns can be traced simply to the lack of common knowledge about specialized areas of knowledge. This is inescapable. Lack of knowledge does not however entail the impossibility of common ontology but rather points to the fact that many people, or agents or groups will have areas of their respective internal ontologies that do not overlap. The pragmatic issue is that sharing as much as possible is beneficial, and that a vast amount of ontology can be shared."

When seeking breakthrough, also, the stresses on political and social processes must be minimized, so that the actual moral conflicts at least have a chance to be settled by peacemaking and diplomatic initiatives, without the many known technical barriers that could be resolved or at least minimized by fully grounded foundation ontology.

A project of this kind was proposed by Cliff Joslyn in early 2001 and became the LANL ontology. Collaboration with the UNU Millenium Project was proposed but not initiated until Craig Hubley and the Efficient Civics Guild began to focus on efficient politics, e-government and - with the Civic Efficiency Group - healthy telecom.

Refer link GFDL corpusen: wikipedia: ontology (computer science)