To: | edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:56:05 +0700 |
Message-id: | <c09b00eb0801251956u45e547c4wa586d0c0e0a308c2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Ed, of all the good contributions that I have been reading of yours, this is to date the most important from my perspective . - thanks for pulling the thread back in from the vastity of universe of discourse (I have just noticed a blue line on the left of this text, is it my email client or yours?)
I dont see how anyone could disagree with this. Unfortunately, some scientists think that whatever is not classified as science (in their understanding of it, which is partial to most humans) is nothing to do with ontology. This is very central, because all information and knowledge today, exists (and is made useful and accessible and applicable for human progress) thanks to information systems which have been designed thanks to soft eng (which is a not a science?!). Ontology, has become so important today because information systems have become important to scientific and human progress today. Just some people have tunnel vision, and claim that science is this, and not that. However let me say: knowledge is not finite. By using it, (access, mix, reuse, categorize according to different critera etc) we are likely to also develop new understanding, the quality (completeness, accuracy, currency) of knowledge can improve when it is extendend and complemented by other knowledge this is the challenge of inter- and trans- disciplinarity, which can be met only by advanced information systems design
Some people say that software engineering is not real engineering either because the people who do it dont wear a hard hat.
or - ontology for ontology's sake, as it incidentally seems to happen a lot (by trickin naive public research funding bodies into believe that ontology is very important today, and that ontology is what they say it is, because they know it all)
(One of the Cyc problems was that the major funding source had some very unusual knowledge concepts and concerns that resulted in some rather special-purpose ontologies, and some unusual twists on general concepts.) I have a serious problem with funding agencies, and what knowledge they apply, with what logic etc The (a) purpose of Ontology , is to represent Knowledge so that it can be access, used and applied what about time representation then? we lost that part of the thread -- 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | [ontolog-forum] FW: [Semantic_Web] Announcing Calais Web Services, Duane Nickull |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] list of knowledge domains, dbedford |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation, Ed Barkmeyer |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation, matthew.west |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |