[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality

To: Ontolog <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:23:16 -0400
Message-id: <46B73CE4.421F970F@xxxxxxx>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (01)

Andreas,    (02)

I don't think that this has to do with how many realities there are.
It has to do with whether we can use signs -- says, bits at bottom --
to specify a 1-1 map of symbols or terms to objects.    (03)

For example, let's say that there is exactly one mathematical function f
of the type f : B^2 -> B, where B = {0, 1}, that has this operation table:    (04)

  {0, 0) -> 0
  {0, 1) -> 0
  {1, 0) -> 0
  {1, 1) -> 1    (05)

Let's say that I tell you my intention to use the sign "O" for a
logical value of false, the sign "1" for a logical value of true,
and the sign "&" as a name for the above function.  Fine.  We do
that all the time, and it seems to work.    (06)

But does every calculus or logical syntax that arises consistently
from this intention contain, all by itself, enough information to
determine this particular interpretation uniquely?    (07)

Jon Awbrey    (08)

Andreas Tolk wrote:
> > Chris Menzel:
> > "Its only when we ground the semantics of the data in the behaviour of
> > the application/organization that we have any hope of success, and then
> > only after a long and painful process of testing."
> >
> > Sean Baker:
> > The point being that the terms of the definition need to be linked to
> > real behaviour, and not to an interpretation of a model, since the
> > objective of the exchange is always to get the organizations to work
> > together, not to get the computers to agree that they could work
> > together because they have compatible models.
> While I agree philosophically with Sean, the practical reality reflects
> Chris viewpoint. As a human, I think that it should be possible to speak of
> one reality, as a computer scientist and engineers I see that it is not
> possible - and in my oppinion never will be possible - to reflect one
> reality in our systems, as all system are based on different
> conceptualizations.
> The problem is that our ambiguities start with our view of reality
> (assuming there is really only one reality). In the moment we start to
> perceive it, we already use a conceptualization of this reality. This
> concepts do not reflect all aspects of reality, but only the necessary ones
> to deal with the perception in the light of the task currently conducted or
> the status the observer is in. If we use machines (or software in general)
> to deal with this, we need a formal specification of this
> conceptualization. If this formal specification concisely and unambiguously
> defines concepts such that anyone interested in the specified domain can
> consistently understand the concept’s meaning and its suitable use, we
> normally call it an ontology.
> In machines, the concepts used to formally specify the perception of
> reality can differ in structure, scope, and resolution. This is already
> hard enough for the static case, but if we broaden the view to the dynamic
> case, they may differ in the information that is grouped together to make
> sense (such as input parameters needed to start a process; these group of
> parameters define a business object needed for the process, and the same
> information can be used in different business objects, all with a different
> context). In addition, even the same processes triggered by the same
> business object can lead to different status changes in different machines.
> This is the tested behavior of applications.
> The problem is: two contradicting conceptualization can both be right ...
> and that is the challenge to be solved by composable solutions.
> Andreas
> ============================== ;-)
> Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Old Dominion University    (09)

inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (010)

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    (011)

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