Bill,
>
> This just isn't fair and it's more than a bit mean-spirited. I am one of
> "those guys" who think that knowledge of logic, while not sufficient, is
> necessary for anyone who fancies themselves to do "ontology". (01)
Oh Bill - I wrote 'mathematical logic' not 'logic' of course -
(re-reading my post just in case, but I think maybe you need to
re-read too?) (02)
Logic as expressed by words to represent knowledge - - I dont do
mathematical logic (not yet regrettably, athough one day I will)
surely not to the extent that is being discused on this thread at
least. But I am willing to learn, as you can see from my continued
interest ... (03)
I am studying chinese for examaple, and its fascinating to see how
semantics of chinese language seems to be based on entirely different
logical paradigms, but I would not know how to express those different
with mathematical formalisms (not yet) (04)
My post was in reply to the mathematical logic claim by Chris (also
re. what is logic thread) (05)
# Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the
word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason) is most
often said to be the study of arguments, although the exact definition
of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below).
However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same:
to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one
to distinguish good from bad arguments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic (06)
# Mathematical logic is a discipline within mathematics, studying
formal systems in relation to the way they encode intuitive concepts
of proof and computation as part of the foundations of mathematics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_(maths) (07)
I also have
> lots of software development experience (15 years, if that's enough for you) (08)
different scool of software development perhaps ....different
philosphy, different logic and different science... people have
different timescales in which they learn their lessons.
and some people never learn in a lifetime..... (09)
> in "business" environments and enough working on applying ontology to
> business problems to know what you say is just about as false as can be.
> (010)
sorry Bill, I speak the truth (what I see from my point of you is true
to me, and your denial of that is you obviously cannot see that truth
exists beyond what you believe is true) (011)
>
> To make systems work, we have to make conceptual compromises all the time
> (something that none of you here seems interested in - which is your
> prerogative btw)
>
> That is also false. What you mean by "compromises" are one of the main
> reasons that "ontology-based" information systems *fail* - compromise is
> hardly a self-contained desideratum. (012)
It's not false at all, just you dont seem to accept truth beyond what
your experience of it (013)
this was discussed al lenght already: some of us think that any
'representation'
is different entity from the 'reality' it represent, ie there is a gap
between the model and the reality
that's what I mean by compromise (014)
What you call "compromise" becomes
> manageable only when the compromiser is aware of and can elucidate what is
> being compromised. Else, we call it "confusion".
>
Not at all Bill, to make decisions as to what to model and include in
the system, what to leave out, and what are the system goal is always
a matter of comprimising endless options with physical and logical
constraints (015)
thats what I call compromise, working within constraints is a
compromise, although you may a)not see it that way b) call it with
different words - (016)
> I build controlled vocabularies, work with developers to have them
> impemented, make sure that ontology layer is not overlooked at
> project mangement level, and I dont' see your (albeing interesting)
> discussion can help me, and people like me
>
> All of the people I've seen fail at applying *ontology* (and no, I'm not
> talking about controlled vocabularies, DEDs, thesauri, topic maps or any
> such) in "business" environments have one thing in common - they don't
> understand logic. (017)
I do understand logic very well Bill, but we were talking about
mathematical logic (018)
>>>Some also fail because they don't understand ontology. (019)
Or, even more dangerously, they fail because they think that they do
understand ontology, when in reality the only understand one aspect of
it , and they claim that they know it all even when what they offer is
a limited perspective (020)
> Now, some of "us guys" differ on what and how much "ontology" in the
> philosophical sense ought to be packed into the computational sense, but
> make no mistake - there is more agreement than disagreement on the
> fundamentals. (021)
Is there a summary somewhere that I can look up? Have I missed the end
of the consensus discussion? (022)
>
> Language and grammar are more relevant to ontology than mathematical logic
> the good news is you dont have to agree with what I say, cause you
> decide where your reality begins and where it ends (and so do I) (023)
>
> Perhaps, but I would not want one of your "ontologies" to be responsible for
> controlling a nuclear power plant.
> (024)
Of course I would not have the competence , nor the desire, to build
an ontology to control a nuclear powerplant, and I would never claim
to do so - (025)
But I could ensure that your enterprise information system is designed
to support your ontology - something that I may not rely on a
mathematician to do, (026)
The fact that I am not competent in nuclear plant engineering does
not seem relevant to my earlier point, that restricting the discourse
solely to mathematical logic quibbles between peers is not (my
understanding of) what this list is about (027)
Paola Di Maio (028)
> .bill
>
>
> Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>
> Chief Scientist
>
> Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
>
> 3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
>
> Baltimore, MD 21224
>
> Office: 410-675-1201
>
> Cell: 443-858-6444
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (029)
--
--------------------------------------------
Paola Di Maio
School of IT, MFU.ac.th
-------------------------------------------- (030)
"For as long as space and time endures
may I too abide to dispel misery and ignorance" (031)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (032)
|