BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John - I quibble with your 'hidden' definition of the Sign.You say that: .."That term includes every kind of language, logic, patterns, notations, books, documents, web pages, representations, images, diagrams, virtual reality.".. I consider that the above definition refers only to the mediative site, the Representamen, which holds the logic, patterns, etc, that transform raw input sensate data into an Interpretant of that raw data. This function of mediation is termed by Peirce, both as 'sign' and as 'representamen'. I consider this confusing, since this nodal site does not exist 'per se' but only within an irreducible triadic process of Object-Representamen-Interpretant. I consider the full triad as the Sign in that it is an existential entity [whether a word, a thought, a cell, a molecule] made up of these three nodal sites in constant processing/interpretation of input data. Data itself is a triadic Sign - whether it be a chemical molecule moving into an organism or... And it includes its own pattern of organization.. Edwina On Mon 06/12/21 11:59 AM , "John F Sowa" sowa(a)bestweb.net sent: Azamat> I have an impression that many big problems in science and technology could be solved by recognizing Data as a Prime Ontological Category Yes, of course. That is absolutely true!!!! The failure to recognize and emphasize that point is the primary reason why the ISO standard for ontology is hopelessly obsolete. But instead of the word "Data", I recommend the more general word "Signs". That term includes every kind of language, logic, patterns, notations, books, documents, web pages, representations, images, diagrams, virtual reality... independent of any media, substrate, or equipment on which the signs may be stored, displayed, processed, or transmitted. In fact, an ontology that does not include signs as a fundamental category is incapable of representing or talking about itself. Every theory of mathematics and logic is a formal system of signs that are related by formal signs called axioms and rules of inference. For an ontology that has a two-way split at the top (Signs and Physics), see slide 30 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/patolog4.pdf [1] Those are the slides for day 4 of a short course on Patterns of Logic and Ontology. For the slides of the other days, see patlog1, 2, 3, and 5. John Links: ------ [1] http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/patolog4.pdf