If...."by definition, the field of ontology is the study of existence,
and 'an ontology' is a characterization of some entities that have
been investigated by that field" (01)
then it seems obvious others should "...use whatever term the authors
apply to their own productions". Because authors know their
information best. (02)
The question of potentially misusing the term "folksonomy" because
"... have never seen anybody use it to describe their own work" (03)
To me, does not necessarily mean folksonomy is a slur. Does the term
imply an ad-hoc unstructured or immature version of a formal ontology?
Maybe on-the-fly the authors don't have or need an official term yet.
It is what it is, like the rumors of no native american word for art,
or no eskimo word for snow, "things" or "processes" that are so
integral that so far, there has never been a need for them to be
described from outside in a comprehensive overview. (04)
When writing formal specifications, it may be neccessary for terms to
be applied by others outside a field. In this sense, a folksonomy
might be more like an outline or a sketch. Sketches and outlines are
hard to make also. (05)
Debbie MacPherson (06)
On 3/6/07, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Note: I redirected this reply to ontolog-forum instead
> of ontology-summit, and I copied all the people who
> replied to this thread on ontology-summit.
>
> MFU> After all, 'folklore' does not imply a slur....
>
> I agree. Folklore is an important body of literature and
> related cultural contributions. I mean it in a folksy
> way when I address the folks on this email list.
>
> But the word "folk" was used as a slur by behaviorists in
> the phrase "folk psychology". That's an inappropriate term
> for the work of some of the world's greatest philosophers
> and psychologists from from Aristotle to William James.
> My recommendation for that level of description is
> "classical psychology".
>
> For the term "folksonomy", I don't know the motives
> of the people who use the word, but I have never seen
> anybody use it to describe their own work. Therefore,
> I recommend that we use whatever term the authors apply
> to their own productions.
>
> PD> do you mean to say that being a "map between natural
> > languages and artificial languages" is a defining
> > characteristic of an ontology?
> >
> > In other words, that in the absence of that characteristic
> > some X that is under discussion is not an ontology?
>
> AT> While ontology without doubt serve as a map between
> > natural languages and artificial languages they also serve
> > as a map between artificial languages.
>
> By definition, the field of ontology is the study of existence,
> and "an ontology" is a characterization of some entities that
> have been investigated by that field. The support of translation
> between languages, natural or artificial, would be an important
> application (and probably the main goal of people on this list).
>
> The founder of the subject was Aristotle (although he himself
> did not use the word "ontology"). And he developed his original
> categories through an analysis of the vocabulary and grammar of
> a natural language (Greek). He also developed the first version
> of formal logic -- his method of syllogisms -- in a stylized
> or controlled version of Greek.
>
> Shortly after Aristotle died, the question arose about how
> he interpreted his own categories -- whether he intended them
> as modes of characterizing things that exist or as ways of
> talking about things that exist. Theophrastus, his successor
> as head of the Lyceum, replied that Aristotle intended them
> in both senses.
>
> AT> In summary:
> >
> > (1) Ontology serves as a map between natural languages and
> > artificial languages for information (or knowledge) access.
> >
> > (2) Ontology serves as a map between heterogeneous artificial
> > languages to enable homogeneous decision support based on
> > heterogeneous information infrastructures by enabling
> > semantically aligned exchange of information (or knowledge).
>
> I agree. And I believe there is a precedent for that approach
> going back at least to Theophrastus, if not to Aristotle himself.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (07)
-- (08)
************************************************* (09)
Deborah MacPherson
www.accuracyandaesthetics.com
www.deborahmacpherson.com (010)
The content of this email may contain private
confidential information. Do not forward, copy,
share, or otherwise distribute without explicit
written permission from all correspondents. (011)
************************************************** (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|