Smith, Barry wrote:
> Waclaw says
>
>
> You can use any language, of any expressivity, and still do silly
>> things. Constrained expressivity does not mean that what you say about
>> the world is necessarily confused -- it is just a model which is much
>> more simple than the modeled reality.
>
> What, I wonder, does he mean by 'it'? Does he mean the language (is
> OWL or any other language intended to be a model of reality)? Or some
> statement or collection of statements in some language? When I say
> 'the cat is on the mat' I, for one, am not intending to create a
> model of reality. Rather, I am attempting to say something about
> reality itself (this very cat). (01)
I did not say that a statement like 'the cat is on the mat' is about a
model of reality instead of about reality itself. Quite the opposite:
it is about reality, and that's why I would consider it a model of
reality (and not of a model thereof). (02)
While I agree that the term 'model' is quite ambiguous (unless precisely
defined in the context at hand), I still see nothing wrong in saying
that what you say about the world is a model of the world. If the term
'representation' were used instead, would you object as well?
(Constraining the discussion to assertional statements only.) (03)
vQ (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)
|