|
Stavros, like it or not, you in the irreal
place where most things are badly perverted. Where some AI debunked formal
logicians metamorphosed into bad ontologists, where logical drool is
presented as the frontier of semantics and ontology, where 'reality' is an
abusive word, and where one chronic self-promoter, having comic
incognizance of ontology, will be constantly making his logical crap
on you, adding insult if you try to resist.
As for your concern. Engineering ontology, which
you are interested, is an application of theoretical ontology, which only
gives you basic categories, models, schema, axioms, and rules of REALITY.
Ignoring the fundamentals will doom you to concoct defective artefacts and
faulty applications; for the real world knowledge systems necessitates a true
account of Reality, the world, like this or not. Now it's you choice
which way to go: the utopia of formal unreality or the true world
of reality.
regards,
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 2:40
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric
sheep
You are at the right place, Stavros. We are just a
pretty tolerant group, tolerating many spouters. Welcome aboard. By the way,
we tend to smack around the idiots, but are typically open to insight from
everyone.
Thanks,
Leo
On Nov 9, 2007 3:36 PM, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...the
real nature of ontology. Namely, that it studies the being of
everything
which exists and changes; that it is the general account
of
reality, ...; that it increases the world knowledge, unfolds
new
basic
truths, develops new sciences and technology
I joined
this mailing list recently, thinking that it was about "ontology" in the
(arguably trivializing and abusive) computer science sense, that is,
building rich, useful, machine-processable descriptions of concepts and
relationships and using them in practical ways. Of course, these
descriptions should be informed as much as possible by insights from
philosophy, psychology, and confectionery, but I'd rather not wait until
these fields have reached their final conclusions (42?).
If I have
misunderstood, and in fact this mailing list is devoted to a foundationalist
"general account of reality", then I am in the wrong place. If on the
other hand it is in fact devoted to the more mundane engineering and
scientific tasks I sketch above, perhaps the more ambitious discussions
could find another home?
-s
On Nov 9, 2007 3:36 PM, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...the
real nature of ontology. Namely, that it studies the being of
everything
which exists and changes; that it is the general account
of
reality, ...; that it increases the world knowledge, unfolds
new
basic
truths, develops new sciences and technology
I joined
this mailing list recently, thinking that it was about "ontology" in the
(arguably trivializing and abusive) computer science sense, that is,
building rich, useful, machine-processable descriptions of concepts and
relationships and using them in practical ways. Of course, these
descriptions should be informed as much as possible by insights from
philosophy, psychology, and confectionery, but I'd rather not wait until
these fields have reached their final conclusions (42?).
If I have
misunderstood, and in fact this mailing list is devoted to a foundationalist
"general account of reality", then I am in the wrong place. If on the
other hand it is in fact devoted to the more mundane engineering and
scientific tasks I sketch above, perhaps the more ambitious discussions
could find another home?
_________________________________________________________________
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
|