[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:58:32 -0600
Message-id: <DCE5FC64-0152-4754-B444-AA599478317D@xxxxxxxx>

GIF image

John, it is your use of "approximation" to characterize ALL models  
without exception here that I object to.  Of course, depending on  
what it in the world one is trying to represent, a model *might*  
necessarily be an approximation, especially if one is modeling  
physical phenomena that are inherently vague or (in effect)  
infinitely complex and hence which simply cannot be represented with  
100% accuracy.  Consider, e.g., modeling a stochastic process or  
fluid flow by means of probability theory or differential equations.   
However, many physical situations involve, *at a desired level of  
granularity*, NO vagueness and NO intractable complexity at all, as  
in my previous example involving faculty and administrators at Texas  
A&M.  Many ontologies involve this kind of sharply delineated,  
unambiguously representable information.  Your diagram above belies  
this fact and suggests that models are always in some way false or  
inaccurate.  It just ain't so.    (01)

Chris Menzel    (02)

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>