ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both needed

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:31:35 -0700
Message-id: <8C00B11E-2A1C-4C59-8441-5D89DFDE5819@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill,    (01)

On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Bill Andersen wrote:    (02)

> Hi Chris.
>
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:57 , Chris Partridge wrote:
>
>> Barry,
>>
>> I'd like to believe this is true, but, I am not quite sure it is.
>>
>> I was at an conference a few years back with some engineers doing
>> the safety
>> critical work (including simulation) for the Paris Metro - and what
>> intrigued me that there were more concerned that the model of what
>> they were
>> going to implement had an easy to check structure than a close
>> match to
>> reality. I suppose as they were going to impose this reality, they
>> felt a
>> simpler structure was safer.
>>
>> I agree there is a stronger argument when you are trying to model
>> natural
>> structures - but even here I suspect the civil engineers building the
>> nuclear power station use Newtonian rather than quantum mechanics.
>>
>> The engineering question is how useful is to understand the  
>> underlying
>> reality. And I think we are still waiting for a good argument.
>
> Yes - the question of what is good engineering wrt ontology is
> certainly an open one.  It seems obvious to me, however, that a
> mutual understanding of reality (to the extent that that can be
> provided by science) is precisely what allowed the engineers working
> on the Paris Metro to do what they did.  If one group, however,
> believed Newton's laws would do the job for them, and the other group
> believed the spirit of Napoleon moves the cars on schedule, it'd be
> unlikely they'd come to an agreement.
>
> I'll pose this question to the list as I've posed it before to many
> others, most of whom have failed to give a satisfactory reply  if
> ontology-building is an exercise in application-specific modeling
> among a constrained group of users, then why is it not just a variant
> on what we already do with UML which goes under the more pedestrian
> name of data modeling?  Surely it cannot be the use of this or that
> formalism which delivers the desired interoperability properties.    (03)

Good question, and very much to the point of this forum.  I can't  
wait to see the answer.  It could be that the result [ an ontology]  
is somehow better than a data model for one or more purposes.  That  
would be a good enough reason, but I don't think its the real  
answer.  On the the other hand, the metaphysical motives seem counter  
to practical applications in any reasonable future.  It would be nice  
to have a succinct response the next time I get asked [probably  
tomorrow...].
Doug
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>    (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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>