[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Logic As Formal Semiotic

To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jenny ure <jure2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:10:20 +0100
Message-id: <46B19F7C.7020005@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat - it was recorded at the last meeting of a fairly extensive UK 
ontology network that was recently looking at recurring patterns in 
spatio-temporal ontology development. Could ask if this could be made 
available - there seem to be so many common points of interest with the 
issues discussed here that can't help thinking that we should have a 
joint session some time!    (01)

My particular interest there is in recording the socio-technical 
issues/patterns (ie recurring patterns requiring alignment of the 
technical and the human aspects of ontologies and other software- 
relates to the recent discussions about the 'intrusion of the epistemic 
in the ontological'). Anyone else out there with similar interests in 
capturing these?    (02)

Jenny Ure
School of Informatics
Univ. of Edinburgh
www.bcs.org/books/invisiblearchitecture    (03)

>> In a recent discussion on spatio-temporal representations of 
>> 'apparently' straightforward realworld concepts such as the 
>> difference between a river and a lake in GIS,
> Was that discussion recorded, and is any trace of it public? I'd very 
> much like to be more aware of it. The fact that different cultures 
> will give different definitions of such concepts has been known for 
> decades, of course. Almopst no real-world concepts are straightforward 
> when one tries to pin them down with any degree of precision.
>> the environmentalists, the geographers, the fishermen, the freshwater 
>> biologists used very different criteria reflecting fact that the 
>> 'proper object' they sought to achieve were not the same.
> Quite. They are all using the same words to refer to different 
> entities. Surely then a good ontology should focus on the those 
> entities rather than the words (which we know to be ambiguous).
>> HoweverŠthe Ordnance Survey team will make a choice
> Why do you need to make a choice? Is it to keep the maps simple? Fair 
> enough, if so: but I would strongly recommend that you do not make the 
> choice in your ontologies, but instead try to keep the various 
> distinct concepts all alive and distinctly represented, so that part 
> of the business of the ontology is to record the relations between 
> them. Although this is more work in the short term, it will likely 
> have valuable long-term payoff.
> Pat Hayes
>    (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)

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