[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 21:45:50 +0200
Message-id: <042f01c8abc3$f99827d0$0100a8c0@Dev>
Pat, Bill,    (01)

> At 2:41 PM -0400 5/1/08, Bill Andersen wrote:
>>The only reason I can see for the use of the term "ontology" in this
>>connection is to increase the chances of winning funding from people
>>who still attach mystic significance to the term "ontology" that
>>they would not to "logical theory"
> Quite. But isn't that the only reason for using the word "ontology"
> under any circumstances?    (02)

If only it were a laughing matter!  For there is another reason, I 
fear:  the long word with its metaphysical associations makes the 
notion more impressive, seemingly so in touch with some transcendent 
reality.  That's very useful to dictators for browbeating the innocent 
into submitting to the apparent authority behind it.    (03)

That's why in MACK I steer clear of it, and "Form", short for 
"conceptual form", well conveys its function and warns against the 
deformation, oversimplification, semantic dissonance or alienation the 
use of any Forms or concepts at all can easily bring in their wake.    (04)

As for the justice it's supposed to do 'reality', isn't that what the 
disciplines of science, engineering, democratic legitimation, etc, 
hopefully ever-present in its application, are supposed to look after?    (05)

Christopher     (06)

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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>