> So bridges stand because we have a certain amount of useful "knowledge" and
> they fail because we are not omniscient. (01)
They also fail when our models do not accommodate for interaction and
change and the immensity of external factors that, in the real world,
play such a big role. (02)
Predicting change can only be done with limited expectation, however
it is wise to
have an 'x' factor in our equations (uncertainty) and design for some
preventive failover mechanism, instead of assuming that our models
because they are so 'finite' are perfect (03)
The stability factor in a model can only be a temporary , and must be
balanced with the 'uncertainty' factors at application stage (04)
PDM (05)
>
> When we build ontologies for public use, we have a responsibility to codify
> the knowledge that has been validated by theory and experiment, and to label
> that knowledge as such. It may not be "truth", but it represents a level of
> comprehension of our world that human experts accept and use, and we can
> hardly do better than that. Ontological engineering is not epistemology, and
> it is not metaphysics. But we do need a means of separating the "good" models
> (that generally produce results that can be validated by experiment) from the
> "bad" ones (that often produce nonsense).
>
> Finally, the bridge-building example teaches us that no ontology or
> combination of ontologies, no matter how well-founded, can be guaranteed to be
> *sufficient* for any given task. What you don't know can *always* hurt you.
>
> -Ed
>
> P.S. The World Trade Center is another example of the success of accepted
> knowledge and the disaster from the missing information. The impact of a
> jetliner at 480 knots did not bring down the twin towers -- one of the
> buildings swung 6 degrees off of vertical from the impact, but because it had
> been built to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, it swung back to upright!
> What brought the towers down was the fact that the particle wind from the
> disintegrated aircraft stripped the heat insulation off the lateral supports,
> and the heat from the slow-burning office furniture then weakened the supports
> -- a combination of bizarre factors for which we only made the predictive
> model after the fact.
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (06)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|