> > 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. (01)
I agree. But on a lighter note, while
mathematical logic as a whole is a huge body of
scholarship, some of it very abstruse and
requiring graduate-level study, I think that the
basics of the topic - enough to follow the
terminology used in these discussions, at any
rate - can be summarized fairly compactly,
expressed in reasonably clear non- (or maybe
slightly-) -mathematical language, and grokked
fairly easily. (02)
Pat (03)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|