[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:24:22 +0200
Message-id: <46705276.2080901@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
> At 9:39 AM -0600 6/13/07, Smith, Barry wrote:
>> [BS] I hope that we all agree that in major, critical, domains, such 
>> as medicine or nuclear power generation a good strategy for creating 
>> useful models is to seek to find out what the underlying reality is 
>> like.
> Of course.
> In a couple of decades of building models of phenomena, many of them 
> in major, critical domains, I have come to the conclusion that the 
> underlying reality of the world we live in is such that the best, 
> most useful models of many phenomena are probabilistic.
> When I say this, I get nods from many engineers who have been in the 
> trenches building models. They want to know about technologies for 
> building interoperable models.
> But ontologists tell me it is a category error to put probability in 
> the ontology, because probability is epistemic and not ontological.
> IMO, is an example of counterproductive pedantry.    (01)

Perhaps we should start building what could be called 'epistemologies', 
to avoid the block.  (Indeed, 'KR' have long meant knowledge 
representation rather than reality representation.)    (02)

vQ    (03)

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)

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