[Zero]

How about creating our own AiDream's Team Upper Ontology?

It could turn out to be a nice collaborative activity, relax, no deadline, a project where everyone can bring a little personal touch.
Could be fun.
 

[infurl]

http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/webspace/jb/info-pages/ontology/ontology-root.htm

I wouldn't even consider trying to start another ontology project until I had studied and evaluated every single one of the ontologies listed on that page.

[WriterOfMinds]

How would we do it? I.e. how do you envision allocating pieces of the project and merging everyone's contributions?

[MagnusWootton]

I never heard of the word ontology before this,  does it mean it contains fixed truths about the world life and consciousness that are constant and never change fully absolute?

That's a little depressing to think there's a real deprivation of liberty here to me,  I'd rather head in the sand.

[WriterOfMinds]

My quick layman's definition of "ontology" is that it's the study of how to categorize things. Or, in this case, a system for categorizing things.

[Zero]

http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/webspace/jb/info-pages/ontology/ontology-root.htm

I wouldn't even consider trying to start another ontology project until I had studied and evaluated every single one of the ontologies listed on that page.

This is such a useful link, thank you.
I'm on it 

How would we do it? I.e. how do you envision allocating pieces of the project and merging everyone's contributions?

Let me improvise something. A kanban tree, starting from a root card "Make an ontology together".

Anyone one can choose a pending card and either:
- complete the task on it, or
- divide it into a set of children cards.

Edit.

This scheme doesn't handle the merging of completed task. So I guess the one who divided a task would be in charge of orchestrating and merging the children.

It might also be an interesting software execution model.

[Zero]

Already existing upper ontologies
- have an objective (god's eye) approach, rather than a subjective one (even DOLCE, despite the claim),
- are meant to match the human knowledge, rather than the subjective experience of an intelligent program.

I don't think their batteries-included / human-biased nature represents an optimal starting point.
That's the rationale.

[Zero]

Imagining what it's like to be a casual program is a bit like imagining what it's like to be an earthworm. We have no clue!

[chattable]

did you start yet?

[WriterOfMinds]

Zero left the forum, so this is a dead project, I'm afraid.

[chattable]

oh i did not know that.

[spydaz]

http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/webspace/jb/info-pages/ontology/ontology-root.htm

I wouldn't even consider trying to start another ontology project until I had studied and evaluated every single one of the ontologies listed on that page.

I have and most of them are no good now and highly polluted... as well as mixed methodologies.... and theologies...

I used all of their sources and scooped the data years ago before it became a lot more harder and chopped .. Today i have a data warehouse of information ..
Then turning that into usable information is the key....each never actually worked... they did not produce good universal information ....
The cleaning and filtering process was too much work in the end.
Finally i went back to the beginning starting with the database in nouns <<<< And building every "fact" from here... and their connectivity... to build the final usable ontology it begins with the noun base extending to the various languages and building the ontology from the beginning.
.... Obviously my own way and opinion and by no means reflects the way in which you may choose to think . not to offend. 

[DaltonG]

I never heard of the word ontology before this,  does it mean it contains fixed truths about the world life and consciousness that are constant and never change fully absolute?

That's a little depressing to think there's a real deprivation of liberty here to me,  I'd rather head in the sand.

Ontology: Like many words, it can be ambiguous without a contextual reference. I suppose we all have our own personal exposures to ontology and I relate to it through its use as a biological principle, as in "Ontology recapitulates phylogeny." Admittedly, a some what disputed principle, but as an example of its use, it refers to the developmental stages an embryo and fetus goes through in which primitive features and produced, then reabsorbed during development. So, to me, ontology refers to the developmental processes that a project pass through from beginning to ending. Hope that helps.