[KC] > I think I am in agreement with
you on most of your points, insofar as
> I understand them, except for the one about why bring in
> My concern was that in an effort to make an ontology for some
> indexing of knowledge (applied ontology, as opposed to
> ontology??), we should be aware of a vast universe of
> knowledge for which this will be difficult or impossible, given
> difficulty even ascertaining what the propositions are.
[IJ] O.K., I have taken it for granted that everyone is aware of this;
least I am. But I would like to add one thing: in engineering it is
to tell what is *completely* impossible to do before many clever men
women have tried to do the impossible.
[KBL] An ontology has been defined as a "specification of a
conceptualization." When we create an ontology (the noun,
the artifact, as distinct from the philosophical discipline) we are
creating a representation of that which exists. A
representation is different from that which is represented. Any
representation is fallible -- it may contain errors and
Therefore, we cannot avoid the link with epistemology.
To study the relationship between an ontology artifact and that which
it represents is to study epistemology. In many practical situations,
it is of essential importance to acknowledge explicitly that an
ontology is incomplete and error-prone. In such situations, it
is important to annotate a representation with information about its
credibility or quality.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)