Pat, (01)
In responding (personally) to my previous post of
>>We then proceeded to a long discussion on
>>continuant and occurrents and then into
>metaphysics.
>>So what about the initial question? (02)
You said: (03)
>Sorry.
Barry suggested, in response to Waclaw,
that a candidate two such ontologies (both
needed, but incompatible) would be two based on
incompatible views of time and change, referred
to by the continuant/occurrent language. (He did
this by referring to a paper awaiting
publication.) I reacted to this by challenging
the utility of the contrast, and offering to
synthesize any two such actual ontologies into a
single one. The thread then diverted into an old
debate about the sources of this claimed
distinction, whether it is necessary, etc.. These
are old debates. My quip about philosophers was
intended to put an end to that particular
argument. My offer to eliminate continuants (or
to unify two supposed inconsistent ontologies
based on the continuant/occurrent distinction
>into a single consistent ontology) still stands. (04)
>I have not seen any other proposed examples to answer Waclaw's question. (05)
This is a useful summary on that part of the thread and looking at your
response to Peter (below) that (06)
<Pat> I entirely agree that semantic
consistency across large and varied datasets is valuable, perhaps
essential. Someone has to provide a means to maintain this
consistency, probably, in the current state of the art, by designing
and publishing a common ontological framework and teaching people how
to use it. My point was directed at the person to whom falls this
<Pat>responsibility, of designing and maintaining the central ontology. (07)
The constuctive questions that we might be discussing then include
what is the best way to provide semantic consistency across large and
varied datasets; and what means are used to maintain this
consistency, probably, in the current state of the art, by designing
and publishing a common ontological framework? (08)
Now if smart, analytic philosophers were to apply themselves to these
requirements
in a focused way we might all prosper. (09)
Gary Berg-Cross (010)
Executive Secretariat (011)
Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP) (012)
http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop (013)
________________________________ (014)
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Pat Hayes
Sent: Fri 6/22/2007 4:01 PM
To: Chris Partridge
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two (015)
>Peter,
>
>Perhaps I can explain my motivation.
>
>My work in ontological engineering focuses on ontologies for largish
>business operational systems. In these, it is extremely useful to have a
>semantically consistent framework across large and varied data sets. I have
>found that for this it is useful/essential to have a good(ish) top ontology.
>I have found that much of what exists in this top ontology is formal and
>metaphysical - and that a rudimentary understanding of metaphysics is
>useful/essential in devising and (at the beginning) using the top ontology.
>
>Pat's original (I think, mischievous) comment about adopting a DIY approach
>seems to me a recipe for disaster for this kind of work - hence my response. (016)
It was worded in a barbed way, but I did (and do) mean it sincerely.
But perhaps it can be misunderstood. Applied to Chris' application
area, I did not mean to imply that every user in a large organization
should invent their own metaphysics. I entirely agree that semantic
consistency across large and varied datasets is valuable, perhaps
essential. Someone has to provide a means to maintain this
consistency, probably, in the current state of the art, by designing
and publishing a common ontological framework and teaching people how
to use it. My point was directed at the person to whom falls this
responsibility, of designing and maintaining the central ontology.
Should they feel that they need to study (or consult someone who has
studied) metaphysics or philosophy before starting on this
enterprise, or should they rather focus on making the ontology
reflect the needs of their organization or community, and make up the
'metaphysics' as they go along, as much as seems necessary? I meant
to suggest the latter. (017)
Although it is of course up to the person themselves to say what is
helpful to them, I meant only to try to counteract what I often
perceive as a kind of ritual genefluxion to academic philosophy among
ontological engineers. If you find textbooks of metaphysics helpful,
I will not try to gainsay you. But if you don't, don't feel guilty
about it. I have been an academic philosopher, and I didn't find any
of it to have the slightest relevance to ontology design. And it
seems to me that, on balance, it has caused more harm than good in
our field. (018)
>I was attempting to point out what I saw as some inconsistencies in his
>rationalisation of his position and clarifying it - so that, hopefully, a
>useful/essential approach was not dismissed out of hand.
>
>So my concern was more about blocking a retreat rather than making an
>advance. I am guessing that Pat's dog metaphor shows that we (Pat and I)
>have reached some kind of conclusion. I am not sure whether this advances
>anything much.
>
>If I may, I'd like to restate Pat's dog story is more boring but less
>uncomplimentary terms to make the conclusion clearer.
>
>It is normal practice for engineers to build their artefacts and theories
>selectively taking material from relevant sciences. Given the different
>goals and objectives of the engineering and scientific communities, it is
>unsurprising that the scientists from whom engineers borrow this material
>are often not the best judges of how to use it for engineering ends. Though
>they might be good at spotting how their material is being grossly misused
>or misunderstood. (019)
Im less concerned with science than with philosophy. I don't see
philosophy as being even remotely like a science, either in its
goals, practices or results. (020)
>I think I detected in Pat's dog story a grudging acceptance that, for
>example, re-using some pertinent bits of metaphysics might by useful in a
>top ontology - so long as one realised that the opinions of the
>metaphysicians developed internally in philosophical communities should not
>be expected to have any special relevance to the application of their work
>in ontological engineering.
>
>Pat, am I at all right here? (021)
Well, yes, if you like. Though I havn't seen any evidence that
re-using a pertinent bit of metaphysics IS in fact any use. Can you
cite an example? And I prefer my way of putting it, since (as I say)
it seems to me that a counterblast is needed against a widespread and
common mis-perception of the importance of philosophy in ontology. (022)
Pat (023)
>On second thoughts, if Pat does agree then I think this would a small
>advance. And Pat's dog story or my re-rendering could be regarded as a
>relevant conclusion.
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter F Brown
>>Sent: 21 June 2007 22:54
>>To: [ontolog-forum] ; Pat Hayes
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two
>>
>>Could someone sum up where this thread is going? Or is it just a
>>philosophical stroll in the park (or Platonic cave, I'm not sure
>>what...)? Frankly, apart from a partially illuminating Philosophy 101,
>>has anything actually been said that advances the cause of ontological
>>research and practice? If so, someone care to draw some conclusions?
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan
>>Ruttenberg
>>Sent: 21 June 2007 23:22
>>To: [ontolog-forum] ; Pat Hayes
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two
>>
>>On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> And if you subscribe to for example public-semweb-lifesci@xxxxxx
>>> (or look in the recent archives) you will see hard-nosed, busy,
>>> practical men who are trying to build systems of direct social and
>>> scientific importance, having interminable debates about whether
>>> or not a computational process has to be distinguished from a
>>> physical process because one is a continuant but the other is an
>>> occurrent. All of which is a tragic waste of time and energy.
>>
>>a) I think this subject came up at the beginning of the month or so,
>>at worst, a portion of discussion during a period of 3 weeks has been
>>tragically wasted. Also, as you point out on occasion, these
>>discussions are finite, and so the debates are certainly not
>>interminable :)
>>b) Being one of those people, I don't happen to think that the
>>discussion is a waste of time. There is a lot of (well meaning but)
>>sloppy thinking that happens on that list, and the discussions on
>>computation processes are, at a minimum, educational. They seem, to
>>my experience, the normal sort of discussion a group of people have
>>as they move towards a common understanding.
>>
>>Hard nosed, busily, practically, yours,
>>
>>Alan (024)
<<winmail.dat>>
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|