Dear Paola, (01)
You wrote: I may not be able to contribute intelligently to this thread
because it is beyond my competence, but believe me, I would not hire any of
you guys to work on a project cause it will never get anywhere :-), (02)
I have a little experience in commercial software engineering (over 30
years) and have not found a knowledge of mathematical logic any hindrance in
getting the projects competed on time and within budget. (03)
Over the last 30 years, working on ontology projects, I have found that,
when building the team, people with a background in philosophy or logic or
mathematics have made significant contributions - and cannot envisage a team
without them (where, I have not been able to recruit enough, it has caused
problems). So, I have at least some empirical evidence that ChrisM's claim
has a grain of truth. (04)
In the particular field that ChrisM and PatH describe as 'ontological
engineering', I am sure ChrisM is right in his claim. (05)
I also think there are legitimate concerns about whether one also needs
experience of actually implementing systems, typically larger scale
industrial strength commercial systems, using this knowledge before one can
feel truly confident about how it should be used. Bill Andersen, as you can
see from his email, can comment on this from experience, as can a number of
other people. And the experience seems to bear out the usefulness of an
understanding of mathematical logic. (06)
While you are under no obligation to hire any of us (were we to want to be
hired), I think your suggestion that the project would not be successful
does not, as far as I can tell, seem to have any empirical basis. (07)
You wrote: I build controlled vocabularies, work with developers to have
them impemented, make sure that ontology layer is not overlooked at
project mangement level, (08)
Could you give us a better idea of the kind of systems you work on? In
particular, could you say whether these systems have an operational element
- such as a FX trading system or a nuclear plant or an ATM? I have found
that the accuracy that a (mathematical) ontology gives you become
useful/essential when one has to provide a sound operational system. (09)
Chris (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 17 March 2007 03:33
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and
OntologyinMetaphysics (011)
Hi Chris and all (012)
This thread is starting to become very alienating to all those who
really are not interested in this discussion, and find it a self
gratification exercise, however (unlike others on this list) I respect
the fact that people should be allowed to discuss the perspective that
most interest s them, even if this will only be intellegible by a
small number of people. (013)
(gorgonzola anyone?) (014)
Maybe we should start a SIG (015)
Coming from a linguistic and software engineering background, I feel
'offended' from your claim below (not too seriousuly offended, but
hurt) (016)
I came across Tom Gruber's and John Sowa's works a few years back as
I was developing
conceptual frameworks for the systems I worked on. I was workin on the
internet and associated technologies, and became more and more aware
of the importance
of computational semantics and related technologies to be built into systems (017)
Then I specialised in CMS technology and started studying the new
layers of semantic management that were built in, then with content
structures, then knowledge architectures. (018)
My specialisation is to create semantic structures and information
systems that hold water (019)
I consider myself highly compentent, and I assure you that your degree
in mathematical logic would not help you to do my job, nor many other
jobs associated with ontology engineering from a 'business' viewpoint. (020)
I may not be able to contribute intelligently to this thread because
it is beyond my competence, but believe me, I would not hire any of
you guys to work on a project
cause it will never get anywhere (021)
:-), (022)
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) (023)
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 (024)
There is nothing in this thread that can help me there, but I still
read the posts as I can learn new things (not a mathematician, but
interested in scientific enquiry) (025)
Reality can be navigated and understood in many ways, your preferred way is
maths and logic, which is great.
But I assure you that knowledge and reality extend beyond what can be
represented by mathematical logic (026)
Semantic technologies work with words, science and philosophy are to
some extent intertwined, as discussed recently. (027)
You dont have to agree , I am not sure whether finding consensus on
such big issues should be our goal. Its easier to attempt to reach
consensus on 'operational' goals (028)
I dont want to end up saying 'some guys on this list are total idiots'
I prefer to say, these guys have a totally different viewpoint from mine. (029)
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) (030)
I do not want to argue with you, or any other mathematicians on this
list that maths is just a way of understanding the world, and that
there are many other ways (because if you really think that, this is
really is a misery) (031)
To take the semantic and ontological discourse entirely into a narrow
field' that only you and your peers can engage with, is extremely
unfair to the rest of the world, and only interesting to a small group
of people. (032)
I intend to study more maths, algebra and logic when I have time,
cause I do think they are the most appropriate abstraction and
representation methods of certain logical inferences, but these days
I am interested in non mathematical representation of ontologies cause
from my viewpoint semantic relationships can only be partly modelled
by mathematical logic (033)
I consider the attempt to rescrict ontology discourse to a pure
mathematical exercise unacceptable by all accounts. (034)
Peter: I think we should start a polling tool and some user profiling
for this group
so we can determine whether this list is just for mathematicians to
impose their view of the world onto others, or else indeed for people
with different backgrounds and levels of interests in new
technologies (035)
If it turns out the latter, then offensive' statements like the one
below (and like the gorzonzola one earlier) and any attempt to
restrict the discourse to a single, partial point of view should be
moderated rigorously in the future (036)
Best (037)
Paola Di Maio (038)
On 3/17/07, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What might be nice (but possibly impossible) is to agree on some
> > frame of
> > reference or common definitions of the terms used in this thread
> > and others.
> > Without such, I fear this community will be doomed to argue the
> > very basic
> > tenets of ontology without arriving at consensus.
>
> I whole-heartedly agree. The thing is, the frame of reference in
> which those terms are defined is settled and fixed, namely,
> mathematical logic. There should be no issue of their meanings in a
> mature community devoted to ontological engineering. Knowledge of
> basic mathematical logic -- minimally: formal languages, model
> theory, proof theory -- is as fundamental to ontological engineering
> as the calculus is to electrical engineering, and no one can be
> considered a serious practitioner of the discipline without it.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (039)
--
--------------------------------------------
Paola Di Maio
School of IT, MFU.ac.th
-------------------------------------------- (040)
"For as long as space and time endures
may I too abide to dispel misery and ignorance" (041)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (042)
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.12/724 - Release Date: 16/03/2007
12:12 (043)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.12/724 - Release Date: 16/03/2007
12:12 (044)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (045)
|