>
>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"?)
>
>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. (01)
I think you are here mixing up what the ontology is about, with the
question of what kind of system is going to be using the ontology. (02)
>But this seems to restrict the scope
>of application drastically. (03)
Well, it restricts it to ontological engineering, as opposed to (for
example) general computer science, control engineering, gear design
and electrical engineering. When you start making general
observations about 'systems that do things', you are casting your net
rather widely. But in any case, I bet you will have hard time finding
many engineers who feel a need to take courses in deontic logic
before considering themselves qualified. (04)
Pat (05)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|