HI Chris (01)
Thanks for the opportunity to discover more (02)
> Suppose you were to announce that you intended to build a bridge over
> a wide river and that you had your own "qualitative" understanding of
> bridge construction and such relevant concepts as mass and mechanical
> resonance. Would you find it offensive if you were told that the
> meanings of those terms vis-a-vis bridge construction had already
> been fixed by modern physics? (03)
Knowledge engineering and information modelling are not directly comparable to
the engineering of physical objects, like a bridge. (04)
> The only reason I can imagine for such
> a response would be that you were under the misimpression that bridge
> building isn't really an engineering discipline grounded on physics (05)
but I would never respond anything of the sort, you are fabricating your own
inexact representation of my statement. Building a bridge is best
done with mathematical calculus, exchanging heterogeneous information
over the web is an entirely
different set up altogether, and I argue that a civil engineer would
probably do a poor job
at attempting to model semantic frameworks on the web based
environment if it attempted to use solely all his valuable knowledge
acquired in years in the construction industry (06)
> but on something far more subjective and intangible, something about
> which there can be various, equally valid viewpoints, none of which
> is really open to criticism. That would be an interesting (and
> incorrect) view. (07)
bridges are not the best example of the latter, but a lot of other things
including opinions and values and beliefs, which make up most of the discourse
would have many equally valid viewpoints without having any impact of
the truth whatsoever (08)
The bridge however has many political and social implications that an
ontology may/or may not want to capture, depending on the goal of the
ontology and the system that it must support. You cannot ignore the
environmental impact of a bridge, even if you dont have a mathematical
proof for it (if you do, please share ) (09)
>> It would also not get many reliable bridges built. (010)
But I am not tbuilding bridges at all, maybe you do (is this your
real trade Chris) (011)
I build information structures for web based environments, and they
are made of very different matter than concrete and steel rods (012)
> The goal of ontological engineering is to be able to exchange and
> robustly process distributed information on high-speed computer
> networks. (013)
On a variety of topics. Some these knowledge domains are best
represented mathematically, and some are not. Information is not just
data. (014)
The way that information gets into computers -- in the
> ontological engineering paradigm -- is by means of one or another
> formal representation language. (015)
andr natural language to some extent (consensus?)
Information is qualitative, data in context (016)
The only way of guaranteeing that
> the language in question has the required representational capacities
> is by providing it with a rigorous model theory. (017)
sure, which applies also to natural language
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/ (018)
"But in a broader sense, model theory is the study of the
interpretation of any language, formal or natural, by means of
set-theoretic structures, with Alfred Tarski's truth definition as a
paradigm. In this broader sense, model theory meets philosophy at
several points, for example in the theory of logical consequence and
in the semantics of natural languages." (019)
The only way the
> information represented is going to be reliably processed is by means
> of (among other things) a sound underlying proof theory. (020)
I do not see how you can make the step between model theory=proof theory ,
from what I know they are quite different approaches, sometimes
perceived as contrasting
(but I admit I know little). maybe you can teach us something here. (021)
are you saying that if something cannot be proofed it cannot convey
any knowledge, or is not true? (like happiness) (022)
I do use truth values in engineering, but I also know that truth
values are relative statemetns that depend on a context and other
variables (everything is relative to something else), (023)
Proof theory is not able to proof everything that exists, so should be
used being aware of its limitations (024)
This is why
> knowledge of basic mathematical logic -- formal languages, model
> theory, and proof theory -- is *fundamental* to ontological
> engineering. (025)
I do not dispute that, but I claim that although I do not have the
mathematical proof, I understand when an arguement is weak or flawed -
you may be able to mathematically
proof a logical argument, and there I would have to take your word for
it one day you'll teach me how (026)
But when I read conceptual flaws in your logical arguments I can see
where it does not hold water (the bridge is a limited and incorrect
example/metaphorical representation
of the concept that I was trying to express) (027)
I can proof an argument using logical reasoning, heuristics, and
cognitive mechanics
without using maths. I do not know how to proof things matematically,
but logically and semantically yes
(although that is time consuming - I wish I had a formula) (028)
Ontological engineering is (or, at least, is becoming)
> a technical, scientific discipline built upon rigorous and advanced
> mathematical underpinnings. (029)
and I say that that your definition may not be adequate to
heterogeneneous, qualitative, unstructured knowledge, information and
content
exchanged on the internet, while it may be appropriate for some other
knowledge domains
that you are concerned with (030)
If one purports to be doing ontological
> engineering, then one's work must clearly feed directly into the
> above goal by the stated means. (031)
I purport that I am an ontology engineer when I create a conceptual
framework and derive
an information system architecture for it
Is my claim not valid for you? (032)
my goal and your goad for ontology engineering seem very different, so
do our definitions and methods - or do you want to claim that I have
to accept your defintiion and methods even they are not valid to
represent my reality and the models that I must build from it? (033)
>
> There is certainly plenty of room for nontechnical discussion that is
> relevant to ontological engineering. (034)
Mine IS a technical discussion, and that where it shows that we have
different understanding of what is technical (035)
Information systems are as technical as bridges and nuclear plants (036)
Just a bit more subtle perhaps, (037)
Notably, there are many
> important antecedent philosophical (or at least quasi-philosophical)
> issues that must be addressed about how best to represent certain
> features of the world. But it questionable how effectively one can
> address these issues in an ontological engineering context without
> understanding the technical fundamentals of ontological engineering
> itself. (038)
I do undersand the technical issues, but do no use the same formalisms
as you do to express them, and claim the right to do so on this list (039)
it would be the same as saying that you cannot be a fine art painter
if you have not
completed your bricklaying course. (040)
Following the continuum of your construction example, maths is here
(to me) like bricklaying (surely fundamental) while urban and
evironmental planning, social and political dimension of a building
would not be left in the hands of the mathematician nor of the
bricklayer (041)
> This is not at all to cast any
aspersions on what you do. What you
> do is no doubt intrinsically interesting, which is justification
> enough; and it may well have direct IT applications, but through a
> different paradigm -- and there are certainly other approaches to
> managing and processing information than the ontological engineering
> approach. (042)
' Ontology Engineering is discipline concerned with modelling
conceptual frameworks to facilitate their application in physical or
electronic systems '- (my definition for today) (043)
Ontology engineering is about defining reality,any reality is made of
different simultaneous dimensions for any given system that you build. (044)
In your ontology you define what your science (proof theory or
other) can measure, because that's what you do best. So your ontology
may well be suited to some aspect of the bridge, but not all aspects. (045)
Every other dimension of a given reality that you cannot see,
understand or do is also an ontological question, and that is true
even if you decide to exclude that from your project goal/scope (046)
Try to deny that such realities exist (such as the politcal social
and environmental dimension of a bridge) would be insane, and
unfortunately I see a lot of insanity
(also on this list) (047)
>
> This is not an attempt to restrict discourse to a "partial" point of
> view. (048)
that it what it looks to me. You are tryin to impose your choice of
formalism onto a whole domain (ontology engineering is a domain of
knowledge) and community
you are also trying to impose your own choice of definition of what
ontology engineering is
(while I am happy for you to argue with my definition) (049)
It is an attempt to focus discussion in a forum allegedly
> dedicated to ontological engineering whose function and purpose seem
> to me to have become perilously unclear. (050)
I am happy to focus on what is ontology engineering, from my point of
view, and I hope that nobody here claims that their point of view is
the sole valid one. (051)
Paola Di Maio (052)
>
> Chris Menzel
>
> ps: Please interleave comments rather than top-posting.
> (053)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (054)
|