Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

11 Apr 2016

Ulrich
In response to your reductive assumption in:
>To Gary: of course a collection is something different to an ordinary PID
also in my reductionist approach. It is a PID, that points to a very
special kind of DO. My assumption is, that this is sufficient for all
Ulrich
In response to your reductive assumption in:
>To Gary: of course a collection is something different to an ordinary PID
also in my reductionist approach. It is a PID, that points to a very
special kind of DO. My assumption is, that this is sufficient for all
underlying "substance". But this of course still has to be proven. But
perhaps the examples I mentioned already give a feeling of the
possibilities, that such a definition can have.
PID doesn't seem to be the substrate even if it can be formalized nearly
and recursed. Behind a PID idea is that of Identity, but even this doesn't
seem like a basis for build up a Collection concept. Data collections
pre-existed digital data and thus PID as a practical example.
I am more in the camp of ontologists like John Sowa who see ontological
concepts as the material which logical operators are used to express
concepts.
"Pure logic is ontologically neutral. It makes no presuppositions about
what exists or may exist in any domain or any language for talking about
the domain. To represent knowledge about a specific domain, it must be
supplemented with an ontology that defines the categories of things in that
domain and the terms that people use to talk about them. The ontology
defines the words of a natural language, the predicates of predicate
calculus, the concept and relation types of conceptual graphs, the classes
of an object-oriented language, or the tables and fields of a relational
database." from *"**Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics"* *John F. Sowa*
So as a basis of Collection, if you want to find an atom for the molecule
of Collection it might be the idea of "and" or "partOf" which produces
aggregations & wholes. But there are just some many ways of building
larger structures from smaller ones and this is sub-part of ontology called
Mereology.
So to me we can't start with mathematical and logical terms and expect to
build a world unless we use concepts with terms from that world.
Again to quote Sowa on this language effort:
"No ontology, formal or informal, is independent of the vocabulary and the
methodologies (i.e., language games) used to analyze the data. Natural
language terms have been the starting point for every ontology from
Aristotle to the present. Even the most abstract ontologies of mathematics
and science are analyzed, debated, explained, and taught in natural
languages. For computer applications, the users who enter data and choose
options on menus, think in the words of the NL vocabulary. Any options that
cannot be explained in words the users understand are open invitations to
mistakes, confusions, and system vulnerabilities. Therefore, every ontology
that has any practical application must have a mapping, direct or indirect,
to and from natural languages. " (from John Sowa's "The Role of Logic and
Ontology In Language and Reasoning."
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​

*http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
*
Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770