[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Data Models v. Ontologies (again)

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 15:08:02 +0000
Message-id: <W8726913255127131211987282@webmail16>
Ed and John,     (01)

EB> I started trying to address Len's position, which was that "because it
has no 'theory', software engineering is not 'engineering'". So you can
define 'theory' and agree with him. Or you can define 'theory' and
disagree. I thought he had a point worth discussing, but this
definitely isn't it.    (02)

Yes, defining words 'theory' and 'engineering' only takes us further away from 
the point. That fact by itself is very telling and I made this observation on 
this forum couple of times before (it appears to be a pattern worth analysing) 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=ontolog-forum&i=W514604099242991203351792%40webmail19    (03)

But let me clarify my position. What I said was specifically referring to 
post-industrial-revolution society that we live in "... Engineering results in 
consistent scalable production, which so called 'knowledge engineering' does 
not. And it will not until it applies theories.... Likewise software 
engineering is only engineering within well developed calculus translated into 
true programing languages"     (04)

True, - in the above context theory does not mean formal set of axioms, not 
does it mean some good way to predict the outcome. Here it means !!!unifying!!! 
paradigm, like theory of evolution. This is why I used plural.     (05)

That paradigm is missing (correct me if I wrong) in knowledge management (I 
can't use the word 'engineering' here). But in software engineering (and here I 
can use that word) there is a set of theories that can claim the role of 
paradigm. However, it is not currently developed well enough to provide 
engineering methods for broad practical application. At the same time (and that 
is my most important point) 'software' and 'knowledge' must converge into  a 
single paradigm before we can talk about industrial knowledge engineering.    (06)

I think 'ontology' is a good candidate for such paradigm. This is why topic of 
this discussion hides what Ed called "sacred intellectual challenge" (which he  
 did not see) and what Paola does not accept as anything but provocation. In 
fact it is (in the best tradition of intellectual discourse) a provocation, 
which seemed to somewhat succeed.    (07)

And thank you everyone for interesting discussion!    (08)

-Len    (09)

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    (010)

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