On May 4, 2008, at 09:57 , Ryan Kohl wrote: (01)
> Christopher Menzel wrote:
>>
>> I have to say, I find the the "spatiotemporal existence" condition in
>> a definition of "universal" utterly baffling. Why build such a
>> strong
>> philosophical prejudice into the entire framework from the git-go?
>> Barry and Pierre, are you *that* certain of your insight into
>> reality's Ultimate Nature?
>>
> It doesn't have to be a matter of certainty as much as clarity. If I
> had to choose, I'd prefer a well-defined ontology I had problems
> with to
> a barely-defined ontology that I could interpret to taste. Of
> course, I
> agree that in the crowded upper ontology marketplace, such a
> definition
> of 'universal' would need a stellar ad campaign. (02)
Agreed. Nice point, Ryan. Everyone ought to agree on a principle of
least commitment. To distinguish, say, between universal and
particular, has paid dividends in actual applications I've worked on
where these were conflated. I can point to data. But put a stronger
condition on universal-hood, such that they be spatiotemporally
located, should at least require theoretical clarity, as Ryan points
out, and should come with some examples with real data where the
distinction does some good. I would be very surprised if such examples
exist. (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|