Thanks for the discussion folks. I'm not sure it helps me write the
ontology I need (for which I will be listening to a dozen different
end-user from half a dozen countries the next few days, and will be off
line). However it does highlight where I and it seems much of the
ontology community part company. (01)
John's statement 2 and 3 is, to my mind, essentially a claim that
language proposes an objective model of the universe. My view is that
language is a human construct based on our behaviour, in particular,
that language makes essentially arbitrary distinctions resulting the
choices in particular cultures, and therefore it is perfectly possible
to have ontologies which are separately consistent, but which are not
translatable one to another - if consistency allows for
non-translatability, no further problem. (02)
For example, I mark a student's paper according to mark schema A and
give it a grade C (from the set a to E), Caroline marks it according to
scheme B and gives it a grade 2 (in the range 1 to 10). To claim that
these marks are consistent requires a long regress of comparing
criteria, the rationale for criteria, the rationale for the
rationale.... In principle I cannot see that this would be computable in
finite time, and certainly not within the practicalities of actually
doing it. (03)
That is, there is no Mind of God, or if there is, it would not be
expressible as language. (I don't even believe that 2 + 2 = 4, 0, 1 or 3
seem equally valid options :-). (04)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (05)
This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process
of public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the
contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not
represent an official company view. (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> John F. Sowa
> Sent: 08 June 2007 13:57
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Disaster Management ontology BOF in Delft
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Bill and Wacek,
>
> That is like an existence theorem in mathematics, which shows
> that something exists without showing how to find an explicit
> representation:
>
> BA> You just gave us a recipe for how to make (IMO) a single ontology
> > from Sean's "inconsistent" pieces, via the use of
> reformulation > of his pieces to make them consistent, or
> via use of some kind > of paraconsistency.
>
> vQ> I sympathize with Bill, and would like to see a counterexample
> > to what he says.
>
> I can state another existence theorem:
>
> 1. Any theory that has at least one instance must be consistent.
>
> 2. Since the universe exists, any accurate description of any
> part P of the universe has that part as an instance. Therefore,
> that description, dscr(P), must be a consistent theory.
>
> 3. If P1 and P2 are two parts of the universe that coexist, then
> dscr(P1) and dscr(P2) must each be consistent separately, and
> their conjunction dscr(P1) & dscr(P2) must also be consistent.
>
> 4. By induction, we can prove that the conjunction of all
> descriptions
> of all parts of the universe that coexist must be consistent.
>
> 5. If we use a 4D representation of the universe and consider all
> space-time chunks as parts, then there must be a complete and
> consistent description of the entire universe for all time.
>
> 6. Let's call that description MoG (for Mind of God).
>
> We now have a recipe for discovering the Mind of God (or at
> least a sizable chunk thereof).
>
> BA> That was what I was trying to get to in my original note - loose
> > talk of "one single ontology for X can't ..." is usually
> based > on equally loose understanding of the terms
> "ontology" and "can't".
>
> I just gave a formalizable proof that there is a method for
> solving the problem. I wish the both of you the best of luck
> in carrying out the details.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (07)
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
******************************************************************** (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|