Chris, (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
> Sent: 14 August 2007 20:51
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality
>
> On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> Jon Awbrey schrieb:
> >>> ...
> >>> Can we really and truly dissociate the semantics of terms like
> >>> "duration", "length", and "mass" from the epistemological stance
> >>> of a particular frame of reference, or the operational resources
> >>> of the apparatus that we use to measure them? I don't think so.
> >
> > I do. In fact, we must. How would we talk about accuracy of a
> > measuring apparatus, if there were not a meaningful distinction
> > between a real magnitude and a measurement? To even discuss a
> > measuring apparatus, we need to have a theory of the physical
> > magnitudes which they are designed to measure.
> >
> > More fundamentally, however, these are clearly distinct concepts.
> > Magnitude is not an epistemic notion, but measurement is. And truth,
> > perhaps unlike knowledge of truth, does not require verification or
> > measurement to be meaningfully spoken of.
>
> Exactly so, which is why semantics is entirely distinct from
> epistemology. Indeed, by my admittedly dim lights, epistemology --
> the philosophical analysis of knowledge -- is of at best marginal
> relevance to ontological engineering. (02)
My point is not in response to your comment about the relevance of the
preceding emails - but about the general statement above. (03)
I have found that when one deals with operational systems, epistemic
concerns become relevant - if one is prepared to take 'epistemic' to include
understanding what the system knows. So, for example, one may wish to record
that one system took one measurement and another took another measurement -
and these might be different/conflicting. (04)
Similarly, there seem to be deontic (more " philosophical mumbo-jumbo")
concerns - if one is prepared to take 'deontic' to include understanding
what the system should do. Where, for example, the system may have
responsibility for taking the measurement. The epistemic and the ontic
interact - if the system has to do X if Y, then it needs to know Y, before
it can work out that it needs to do Y. (05)
One can encompass these in one's ontology, by including systems,
measurements and responsibility in the ontology. But at implementation time,
these parts of the ontology needs to be treated differently. For example,
the system needs to know whether it, or some other system, is responsible
for doing X - e.g. taking the measurement. (06)
Of course, this leave opens whether "philosophical mumbo-jumbo" about
epistemology or deontology is relevant here. That is a different question.
Though, it seems to me that awareness of the 'mumbo-jumbo' can sometimes be
useful. (07)
The reason that this is even worth raising is that when one examines
operational systems (systems that do things) one finds that the deontic and
epistemic elements are key to successful operation - so an implementation
process needs to take account of them. (Does this count as "real work"?) (08)
I suppose one could argue that these kinds of operational systems are
outside the scope of ontological engineering - which then would (I suppose)
deal with systems that don't do things. But this seems to restrict the scope
of application drastically. (09)
Ontological engineering is the
> science of creating, maintaining, sharing, integrating and reasoning
> upon large bodies of information represented in computers that are
> linked together on high-speed, open networks. We build ontologies on
> the basis of our best accounts of some aspect of the natural or
> social world according to those we acknowledge as experts. Whom to
> consider an expert -- scientists, long-time employees, whatever --
> emerges as a matter of social organization. I simply do not see
> where philosophical mumbo-jumbo about what exactly it *means* to know
> something fits into the picture here, and discussion of it on a list
> devoted to ontological engineering seems to me to be a complete waste
> of time and bandwidth that is likely to alienate genuine
> practitioners with real work to do.*
>
> Chris Menzel
>
> *I must of course plead guilty myself to getting off topic recently,
> so I guess this note is, in addition to its overt content, also a
> plea for a collective deep breath...
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (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)
|