Hi Chris P (01)
>
> 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. (02)
But I never claimed that Chris statements are not true. Just not
complete. (I claimed that Bill statement that what I say is untrue is
not true) (03)
My original statement was triggered by the fact that lenghty
discussions while interesting and educational may not necessarily help
all problem solving. from everybody's perspective
also it was meant to say 'ontology does not begin nor ends with mathematics'
I standy by that claim (04)
I am not at all intending to diminish the role of the mathematicians
but I would not have a team only of matematicians to define and solve
an ontological question, that would not satisfy my requirements for an
ontology (05)
>
> In the particular field that ChrisM and PatH describe as 'ontological
> engineering', I am sure ChrisM is right in his claim. (06)
I am not disputing anyone's right to make a claim, but I am asserting mine too (07)
>And the experience seems to bear out the usefulness of an
> understanding of mathematical logic. (08)
of course it is useful, I dont think I ever said the contrary
Let me go back to the bridge example. ( which I think is not
representative of my argument but offers an opportunity to discuss
further) (09)
What aspect of a bridge can you model with matematical logic?
every aspect? or only some aspects?
(paraphrasing the elephant and the blind men example that Sowa's made
a while back) (010)
what is a bridge? (011)
to people it may be a shortcut to work
for environmentalists it may be a disaster
if you ask the builder, he will tell you it;s just a few more pillars
to be put together
the engineer will say its pure calculus and will show the forumulas
the architect will show you the drawings and say that's the bridge
the designer will think the bridge is a new stylish feature in the landscape
the finance minister will tell you is a revenue opportunty (toll duty)
administrators, politcians, town planners, logicians, may all have a different
perspective of what aspect of the bridge needs to be modelled (012)
A bridge is a functional building, and it requires mathematical
representation to be build physically. But the physical aspect of the
bridge, like the physical layer in a database,
is not where all the modelling conflicts need to be resolved
There are a lot of other issues that need to be addressed at logical
and conceptual level
In my view of systems design, physical, logical and conceptual layers
require very different analyses and skills sets to be done competently (013)
maths is your choice of tool, mine are words, diagrams, topic maps etc (014)
> 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. (015)
well, it would not be successful because somehow using mathematical logic
the aspects of reality that most concern me, ie. applications, social impact and
operational ones completely fail to be represented, understood and
communicated effecticely.
Or maybe I just dont understand the formalisms that you are using,
which is still a problem, because in a project team you must have
people with different backgrounds and you cannot send everyone to do
maths training before they come to the meeting (016)
But I am willing to see how that can be done, other than casting out
from discourse and decision making everyone who is not a matematician.
In project terms is not acceptable, is likely to want to have a
nuclear plan built solely by mathematicians, I dont think we should
trust anyone that much (017)
>
> Could you give us a better idea of the kind of systems you work on?
I am involved in the design and specification of web based information systems
- not energy, finance nor banking, but typically information and data
exchange, commercial and educational projects (018)
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? (019)
They have an operational element, but they are not generally critical
systems, nor high precision, although I have worked with concurrent
engineering at times (020)
I have found
> that the accuracy that a (mathematical) ontology gives you become
> useful/essential when one has to provide a sound operational system. (021)
what kind of operations? I'd like to see your examples (022)
Paola Di Maio (023)
> Chris
>
>
> -----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
>
> Hi Chris and all
>
> 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.
>
> (gorgonzola anyone?)
>
> Maybe we should start a SIG
>
> Coming from a linguistic and software engineering background, I feel
> 'offended' from your claim below (not too seriousuly offended, but
> hurt)
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> My specialisation is to create semantic structures and information
> systems that hold water
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> :-),
>
> 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)
>
> 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
>
> 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)
>
> 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
>
> Semantic technologies work with words, science and philosophy are to
> some extent intertwined, as discussed recently.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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)
>
> 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)
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> I consider the attempt to rescrict ontology discourse to a pure
> mathematical exercise unacceptable by all accounts.
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> Best
>
> Paola Di Maio
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT, MFU.ac.th
> --------------------------------------------
>
> "For as long as space and time endures
> may I too abide to dispel misery and ignorance"
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (024)
--
--------------------------------------------
Paola Di Maio
School of IT, MFU.ac.th
-------------------------------------------- (025)
"For as long as space and time endures
may I too abide to dispel misery and ignorance" (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
|