I agree with Pat C (below), but here's my special
worry and why I'm going to try to do without the
c-word. Take an example. Right now at weekends Im
restoring an old house. My first Saturday task is
to cut some furring strips: long thin pieces of
wood nailed to the studs, used to make a wall a
bit thicker (to give room for a drainpipe.) So,
here's my question: is "furring strip" a concept?
Hmm, I don't know. I certainly think about
furring strips, and so if thinking involves
concepts then there must be a furring strip
concept, I guess. But I don't think I need to
refer to it or talk about it. Concepts aren't the
kind of thing that one can drive a nail through,
and furring strips are. So apparently furring
strips themselves are not concepts. And 'furring
strip' is an English noun phrase, which I guess
isn't a concept either; and the phrase means the
wooden thing (or maybe the class of such things,
or the property of being such a thing, or
whatever: but not a concept, anyway). So concepts
don't seem to come into the language story or the
house-building story. Suppose I set out to make a
house-restoration ontology and I have an OWL
class called oldHouse:FurringStrip (which is a
subclass of oldHouse:SmallWoodPart, etc.); then
the class name is a URI and the class itself is a
OWL class, and I don't need to speak of concepts
to make sense of this. The OWL semantics doesn't
mention concepts anywhere. So where do the
concepts come into the story? What I certainly
want to avoid is saying or implying that either
the English 'furring strip' or the OWL
oldHouse:FurringStrip *mean* or *denote* a
concept. They both refer to something physical,
or a class of physical things. I don't get houses
built with concepts: I have to buy real, heavy
stuff from Home Depot and drive it there in my
truck. The safest way to avoid this mistake, I
think, is to just not mention the concepts at
all. I don't seem to need to mention them. (01)
Pat (02)
>Deborah, Patrick
>thanks -
>
>I have scanned Barry's (intringuing) paper, but
>do not have time to study in detail - being o
>and c
>not central to my problems right now - I also
>did a keyword search in the paper for
>concept,conceptual and and conceptualization,
>with zero results (bug in my world? - or have
>they manged to make the c world disappear
>without trace and still discuss the notions
>attached to it in the paper? - please indicate
>what page/line is the argument if you could)
>Will study in more detail when I have time.
>
>You mean there is no actual concrete proposal to
>ban the term 'concept' from the discourse,
>rather an informal suggestion or just avoid it -
>phew
>
>I would agree that we need to objectivize what
>is in our mind, and that ontology building is
>part of that effort. But the mind (individual)
>is the only organ that we have capable of
>producing abstraction
>and not sure if we should detach ourselves from
>the only generic term that we have to refer to
>the representation of that abstraction (the
>conceptualization) that we are capable of.
>
>I need to project the product of my mind (a
>concept) into the physical world, and need an
>umbrella term for it (apologies for the
>circularity). Linguistic fuzziness has a role,
>although I agree it is not always the best
>choice.
>
>I remember when I went to school teachers asked
>us to avoid using the term 'thing' and asked us
>to make an effort to use a more appropriate word
>, for example, instead of saying I feel
>something (undefined) we should look for a more
>appropriate vocabulary (I feel an emotion, or I
>feel this and feel that), thus helping us to
>develop our linguisti skills by learning how to
>use more precise words
>
>
>I am not sure that our languages are adequately
>developed to be able to support and express all
>the abstract generalizations/ concepts that the
>mind can conceive, maybe thats why we use a
>generalization of something abstract that we do
>not have words for as 'concept'. Generalizations
>are necessary because they allow anyone to
>visualize their own thing,
>
>But if it is a choice of words that you are
>after (avoiding to use a term which is
>potentially confusing to some) then I respect
>the choice, except that I wont be able to find
>relevant paragraph where the notion of 'concept'
>is discussed if you avoid it.
>
>I still think if we avoid 'concept' and derived
>words, we need to find a set of valid
>substitutes, lest we find ourselves lost for
>words - representation of the abstraction
>perhaps is an equivalent expression, or should
>we avoid that too, and the entire class of terms
>that refer to generic abstract representations?
>
>I think 'notion' is a word I use as a synonym of
>concept, (rather than umbrella?), but somehow it
>is not so 'expressive' , and maybe would end up
>with the same issue later on?
>
>Or maybe, just maybe, the word concept is a
>little abused, a cover word for when we dont
>know what to say really. The rather than avoid
>it, we should learn how to use it only when
>appropriate?
>
>boh - what a problem eh?
>
>cheers
>
>PDM
>(puzzled)
>((ignore me)) (03)
Sorry, I won't ignore you, you raise such nice issues. (04)
>
>On 6/14/07, Cassidy, Patrick J.
><<mailto:pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>Paola,
> I feel your pain.
> I believe that "concept" in most communities
>is used as a vague non-technical term that
>means "any mental structure used in thinking",
>and is useful for talking about things (mental
>structures in the brain - the result of
>neurological processes) whose exact structure we
>do not presently have the technology to
>discover, and in that sense is perfectly useful
>in general and technical discussions as well,
>provided that we do not try to actually fix on
>some rigid definition as the only possible
>meaning. Here are dictionary definitions from
>The Random House Webster:
>
>1.
>
>a general notion or idea; conception.
>
>2.
>
>an idea of something formed by mentally
>combining all its characteristics or
>particulars; a construct.
>
>3.
>
>a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.
>
> The issue that Barry Smith is particularly
>concerned about is whether the
>mathematical/logical structures we put into our
>ontologies should represent some mental
>structure in our brain, or represent the
>physical objects and processes in the real
>world. Whether there is a "real world" of
>abstract things like numbers that can be
>represented independently of how we think about
>them is another issue.. The way I have viewed
>the issue is that it is indeed my intention,
>like Barry's, to represent things in the real
>world as the "referent" for the structures in my
>ontologies. But I am acutely aware that in fact
>I am representing my own understanding of those
>things in the real world - and so is everyone
>else, which is why our ontologies differ and we
>have these wonderful stimulating discussions.
>
> If I understand him, Barry's point of
>avoiding "concept" is to focus on the things
>that are significant in the physical systems we
>deal with, and avoid excessive, experimentally
>unverifiable, and potentially
>confusing abstractions. That's reasonable. I
>myself personally don't think it is necessary to
>avoid using the term "concept" in technical
>matters, provided that we are clear that it is a
>vague general term not intended to have any
>precise technical meaning.
>
>Pat
>
>
>
>From:
><mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>[mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
>On Behalf Of
><mailto:paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:17 AM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question?
>
>I am writing up against a deadline and suddenly
>I realise that one of the foundational artifacts
>in ontology is being questioned on this list
>'the concept'. and 'the conceptualization'
>
> If I take out the word concept from all the
>papers that I am referencing, ontology as a
>science end ups like a colander, full of holes
>If I take out concepts from my mind, my brain
>stops thinking. I cannot see anything anymore. I
>go blind Everything in my mind is a concept, as
>far as I can tell.
>
>Yet I now feel that, given these discussion,
>maybe I should justify the word 'concept each
>time I use it (by concept I mean....)
>somehow this is slowing me down This question has started to bug me
>
>I personally think that 'concept' is a rather
>elementary and necessary expression of thinking
>and a artifact of knowledge representation
>
>Have you, guys who don't think with concepts,
>written a paper, are you serious, or just
>joking? What are you going to substitute concept
>with?
>
>
>Thanks a lot
>
>
>
>Paola Di Maio *****(slightly disturbed)
>
>*********************************************
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives:
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config:
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe:
>mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post:
>mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>Paola Di Maio *****
>School of Information Technology
>Mae Fah Luang University
>Chiang Rai - Thailand
>*********************************************
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|