|Date:||Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:26:58 +0700|
There's nothing wrong with an argument, especially if it's about relevance
(welcome to yet another central problem of ontology engineering)
This conversation started because K goodier proposed we all jump in to do something 'lethal' together (hr...), and I reflected on the choice of words and felt discomfort. Do I really want to do something lethal with K? dont think so. ( I dont even know him in fact)
Re. philosophy, dont worry about that. I can understand that it requires a different angle than your view may offer, ( philosophy exists nonetheless, and uderpins science, business, education etc, you may decide to include it or exclude it in your model of reality). You do seem to produce your own bit of philosophy however.
Relevance to this thread is: does the choice of words have implications and consequences
on representation and inference and behaviour? I think it does and in a collaborative work today, as discussed earlier, technology is relatively trivial in comparison to other conflics arising from different conceptual and semantic views and interpretations.
The real challenge in collaborative decision making projects to me is largely overcoming verbal, opinions and views conflicts. T
But if reality is mostly in our heads, the whole exercise of
ontological engineering is, by my admittedly dim lights, by
definition impossible (hence, obviously, pointless), as the idea of
*shared* meaning implies something outside of our heads about which
we can both agree. If we each have only our own (inherently private)
realities, then the jig is up; there is no *common* world that our
ontologies are *about*.
No. In my understanding (limited viewpoint) 'exists in the mind', means that personal understanding and perspective on reality is relative, and depends on what books you have been reading, the things you believe, and where are coming from, the dim light that you are under, and lots and lots of other conditions.
That includes our respective opinions on what ontology engineering is about.
(I can see the challenge of collaborative decision making more more clearly)
We've gotta to live with that I am afraid...
ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι
On 1/19/07, Christopher Menzel < cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] "Constructivism", Christopher Menzel|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Proceedings of the Ontology Summit 2007 Project Launch - Thu 2007.01.18, Peter P. Yim|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] "Constructivism", Christopher Menzel|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] "Constructivism", Pat Hayes|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|