HI Chris (01)
Of course there are established conventions like the one you refer to below. (02)
By adding the explanatory note, you are constraining the usage -
indeed what I was intending to. I appreciate that within a Cop
(community of practice) definitions are implied, but 'we' (in the
broader term) are not quite there yet. I don't see this forum as a
uniform homogeneous scientific community that shares implicitly all
assumptions. Even within scientific community, across different
disciplines, terms are used differently, unless conventions establish
otherwise (03)
People on this forum attach different meanings to different words and
concepts, and thats what keeps the discussion going, largely (which
most of us seem to enjoy)
If we'd start working on a controlled vocabulary using a wiki, I would
expect a reduction in the number of posts. (04)
However, a definition like fruitfulness, when it comes to scientific
research funded by public money, may become a criterion for acceptance
or ranking of a project: a tick on a list. And unless clearly defined
and constrained by a 'context' like you are doing below, fruitful is
very relative. It could imply simply that bears fruits, of what kind,
to whose benefit, and whether there are economic collaterals attached
to such fruits for some rather than others, is hardly ever evaluated,
or mentioned. It all boils down to labels on boxes. If it matches the
label, it goes in the box. (05)
I dont have a precise instance at hand right now, but I ll make sure I
ll keep one aside next time I come across one. I can easily argue
that everything that gets a private patent and gets developed with
public money, benefits the patent holder, and not the individual
members of the society which has funded such research. I seem to
recall that a lot of private enterprises are funded with public
grants, and would classify that as fruitful for some and not for
others. I ll be happy to hear if you think otherwise. (06)
And Matthew, fine with me, whatever definition you choose, as long as
it is explicit and agreed..... (07)
Cheers (08)
PDM (09)
On Jan 24, 2008 6:05 PM, Chris Partridge <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Paola,
>
> Among philosophers of science, I believe that the notion of fruitfulness is
> reasonably well established. Examples of it would be applications of a
> theory to things that the progenitor had no conception of when he or she put
> the theory forward. There are lots of quoted examples from Newton's and
> Einstein's work. There is also a lot of material on the web (and ones local
> library), if one has time to research it. I understand that among many
> working scientists fruitfulness in this sense is regarded as a key test of
> whether a theory is good/useful or not - so at least some people hold it in
> high regard.
>
> I am not aware of an argument that fruitfulness of a scientific theory in
> the established sense is relative in the sense you claim "(what may fruitful
> for you, may be fruitless for me)" nor any examples - if you know of such an
> argument or example I'd be interested.
>
> I would suggest it would make sense for us to agree to use the term in their
> sense, unless we can provide overriding reasons for a new sense.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> >bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
> >Sent: 24 January 2008 10:47
> >To: [ontolog-forum]
> >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation
> >
>
> >Matthew
> >
> >it all depends what is fruitful, which is a very relative term, unless
> >constrained
> >(what may fruitful for you, may be fruitless for me)
> >
> >For me fffp is necessary to fruitfulness, whatever way you are going
> >to define that
> >
> >We can start the controlled vocabulary for this forum anytime you
> >think its needed
> >:-)
> >
> >cheers
> >PDM
> >
> >
> >On Jan 24, 2008 5:32 PM, <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Dear Paola,
> >>
> >> > > I know from experience that software engineers often try to
> >> > build their
> >> > > artefacts to accommodate potential future changes. How to
> >> > do this is an
> >> > > active area of debate.
> >> >
> >> > - we got to this point a few months back
> >> > are there patterns of change?
> >> > time is one of the factors that determines patterns of change
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > If you want to argue that fruitfulness is not yet well
> >> > understood - I would
> >> >
> >> > > Anyway, the point I wished to make is that providing an
> >> > artefact that will
> >> > > somehow support requirements that I have not yet specified
> >> > is recognised as
> >> > > an important consideration by software engineers and has
> >> > its counterpart
> >> > > 'fruitfulness' in science.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > important point too - fruitfulness, or at least 'fitness for purpose'
> >> > if the fruitfulness debate is not going to be conclusive quickly
> >> > enough
> >>
> >> MW: No. "fit-for-purpose" is the enemy of fruitfulness. Fit-for-purpose
> >> says that it is good enough if it does just what I need and no more.
> >> Fruitfulness is about the unexpected usefulness that was not part of
> >> the original purpose.
> >>
> >> MW: By the way, fruitfulness is not more expensive (in my experience)
> >> than fit-for-purpose. It is mostly about the way you approach problem
> >> solving.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Matthew West
> >> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> >> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> >> Registered in England and Wales
> >> Registered number: 621148
> >> Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >>
> >> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> >> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> >> http://www.shell.com
> >> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Paola Di Maio
> >School of IT
> >www.mfu.ac.th
> >*********************************************
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.10/1240 - Release Date:
> >23/01/2008 17:47
> >
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.10/1240 - Release Date: 23/01/2008
> 17:47
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> 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)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|