Ed, (01)
I don't think you appreciate both: the intellectual challenge and practical
implications of this discussion. (02)
>EB: We are talking about knowledge engineering, and in that field, "ontology"
>>is a term for a model of knowledge. (03)
To call something an engineering does not make it so. Before Industrial
Revolution people were building and making things for the most practical
reasons and in the most practical way they could imagine at the time. That does
not qualify it as engineering. That was craftsmanship like carpenter, smith etc.
Engineering results in consistent scalable production, which so called
"knowledge engineering" does not. And it will not until it applies theories. (04)
One of theories is "Model Theory" which you so casually attached to "model of
knowledge". This is another example of pseudo-engineering. In fact data
modeling is only an engineering discipline withing a particular well
axiomatized relational model with all available mathematical and technical
tools. Likewise software engineering is only engineering within well developed
calculus translated into true programing languages - all other "creativity" in
software industry has not yet reached the level of engineering, despite
considerable wealth created, which is not a proof of soundness (at least to me). (05)
Len Yabloko, Owner/CEO
Next Generation Software
www.ontospace.net (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)
|