Re: [ontolog-forum] Splendid but different approaches to the ontology fi

["Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx>]

Pat,

 

To follow up.

GB-C>>The constructive 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?
>>
>>Now if smart, analytic philosophers were to
>>apply themselves to these requirements
G-BC>>in a focused way we might all prosper.

PH>Well, to be fair to Barry Smith for a second, one
>can reasonably say that he is a splendid example
>of such a one doing exactly that. I just wish he
PH>had done it slightly differently :-)

 

Yes, but speaking for myself, as long as we stay on topic and are responsive to points (and you are very generous with your time, and give a fair hearing, so thank you) I’m glad to hear these expositions on various

conception of what some call “information ontology” which does raise some  old philosophical issues like categories of being, but in the context of  of information representation.  Seems to me this is very important in a new “science field” and might avoid getting locked into a early paradigm that will be limiting down the road.  Of course we have to balance this off with a demonstration of real progress. 

 

As the recent Ontology Summit shows there are different understanding of what an is ontology - "Ontology, Taxonomy, Folksonomy: Understanding the Distinctions" is an attempt to bring together various communities (computer scientists, information scientists, philosophers, domain experts to foster dialog and cooperation among these communities.”

 

The meeting showed there are lots of divergent ideas (from the folksonomy to formalists) of what we are about and no single definition of ontology.

So Barry isn’t the only one doing it differently, but maybe more persuasively than others in (my simplication, which I hope doesn’t misrepresent the position grossly) focusing on the reality of what an ontology represents.   This is in contrast to, among other things to, those who focus formal and logical properties of the way that the “what” is represented  … that is formal models  remains somewhat neutral about what it is that the representational units in an ontology should be construed as referring to.

 

BTW, to see an article where Barry does what seems a useful analytic job on an ontology see his Against Idiosyncrasy in Ontology Development presented at FOIS  2006.

wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/ontology/bfo/west.pdf

 

He presents several principles that might be useful in this young stage of “information ontology”

 

Gary Berg-Cross
Executive Secretariat
Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop

---

From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sat 6/23/2007 12:21 AM
To: Gary Berg-Cross
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two

>Pat,
>
>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?
>
>You said:
>
>>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.
>
>>I have not seen any other proposed examples to answer Waclaw's question.
>
>This is a useful summary on that part of the
>thread and looking at your response to Peter
>(below) that
>
><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.
>
>
>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?
>
>Now if smart, analytic philosophers were to
>apply themselves to these requirements
>in a focused way we might all prosper.

Well, to be fair to Barry Smith for a second, one
can reasonably say that he is a splendid example
of such a one doing exactly that. I just wish he
had done it slightly differently :-)

Pat

>
>
>
>Gary Berg-Cross
>
>Executive Secretariat
>
>Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
>
>http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop

_________________________________________________________________
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)