|To:||Bill Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Cc:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 1 May 2008 20:21:57 +0200|
At 1:41 AM -0400 5/1/08, Bill Andersen wrote:
Yes, exactly. Can you suggest any principled reason why we should not do this?
Or at least it makes them coextensional if we want to put
What has Quine got to do with it? We aren't using 'ontology' in Quine's sense. In any case, the only practical position to take on existence and quantifiers is completely at odds with Quine: to be (ie to be real, in the actual world) is NOT to be the value of a bound variable. We have to be able to quantify over possibilia, in actual ontological practice. One of the lessons of the IKRIS project is that treating quantification into "opaque" contexts by introducing rigid names for possibilia, rendering the contexts transparent, is a much better approach than the more philosopher-sanctioned technique of giving names in opaque contexts a de dicto reading. So, maybe Quine was right for philosophy, but he most certainly wasn't right for ontology engineering.
I don't think Quine would have bestowed the honor of
No, its not. The subject and object have to be legal URIreferences. This is:
extp:a rdfs:subclassOf extp:b .
And yes, that is an ontology. Its not a very interesting ontology, but I see nothing whatever to be gained by trying to give criteria to distinguish 'mere assertions' from 'real ontologies'. This kind of distinction is impossible to make precise, cannot be based on anything other than intuition or prejudice, and in any case is not the slightest use. So, to hell with it. To ignore it is good engineering, good methodology and (I submit) good philosophy. I propose to ignore it, and urge others to do the same.
40 South Alcaniz St.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Heterarchy & Hierarchy, oh my my, Charles P. White|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Heterarchy & Hierarchy, oh my my, Patrick Cassidy|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation, Александр Шкотин|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation, Bill Andersen|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|