Dear Pat, (01)
> Matthew,
> You just disproved your own point: (02)
[MW] I don't think so. (03)
> > Even at simpler level, you used space as something you presumably
> > think is uncontroversial, but is space an empty box that matter
> > exists in (Newton) or does space not exist unless it is filled
> > in some sense (Einstein)?
> >
> If you can describe the term "space" by use of other terms, then you
> are
> in effect saying either that (1) there are multiple theories of "space"
> that
> can be described in terms of more primitive elements; or (2) both
> theories
> are alternative logically consistent views of the same phenomenon that
> can
> be accommodated in a single ontology (i.e. there is a translation of
> anything in empty space to anything in matter-dependent space). In
> either
> case there is still a set of basic primitives that can be used to
> compose
> more complex concepts. (04)
[MW] Unfortunately there is no limit to the number of primitive concepts. (05)
> If there is in fact any ontologist who actually
> wants to use the "no space without matter" theory, it can be
> accommodated as
> an extension to the common foundation ontology, with a different term
> for
> "space" (e..g MatterDependentSpace). We are doing practical
> engineering
> here, not philosophy or astrophysics; even if there are alternative
> possible
> theories that can be described by the basic primitives, if no
> ontologist
> feels the need for an alternative theory, it can be relegated to an
> extension and the more common theory can be used in the base ontology
> until
> it becomes controversial among users, in which case both alternatives
> have
> to be put into an extension. We have also discussed the 3D-4D issue on
> several occasions, and these are two different but logically consistent
> views of the same phenomenon that can both be accommodated in the
> foundation
> ontology. One just has to avoid giving the same label to two different
> things. At this late date in the development of ontology, we should
> all be
> aware of the persistent urge to force one of several possible
> interpretations on some common term, leading to endless debate about
> nothing. In an ontology, different concepts have different labels.
> Period.
> Person3D is not the same as Person4D, though one can create bridging
> axioms
> to translate any assertion about one into an assertion about the other.
> No
> one can force anyone else to use a label to mean something they don't
> want
> it to mean. Mapping of linguistic labels to ontology concepts is the
> task
> of a Natural Language Interpreter, or of a terminology committee (who
> can
> create the links between labels in their own domain/context and the
> ontological elements). Ontologists only need to be able to *represent*
> the
> different interpretations. (06)
[MW] So what you are really proposing then is that you create your own
favourite ontology, and then map every other ontology into it and out of it,
or persuade others to do it for you. (07)
Regards (08)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (09)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (010)
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:54 AM
> > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> > standards
> >
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > I'm sorry, but this is just wrong (I wish it were not).
> >
> > >If there is an
> > > identifiable set of primitives (5000-10,000, say) that can be used
> to
> > > build
> > > all of the more complex concepts required for applications, then
> > > separately
> > > developed ontologies can be related to each other automatically,
> > > because the
> > > relations between the domain terms will be deducible from
> comparison
> > of
> > > the
> > > combinations of primitive elements of which the domain ontology
> > > elements are
> > > composed. That can't be done just using the built-in semantic
> > elements
> > > of
> > > FOL.
> >
> > [MW] The reason is that even when talking about the same thing,
> > different ontological commitments in an ontology will mean that
> > even when they talk about the same thing (in common sense terms)
> > they are not. So, take something as uncontroversial as person,
> > under 3D this is something that exists only in the present, and
> > under 4D this is something that has past and future states that
> > exist. You will not be able to relate ontologies about persons
> > with these two different ontological commitments without translating
> > between these commitments, and not just knowing that they are about
> > persons.
> >
> > Even at simpler level, you used space as something you presumably
> > think is uncontroversial, but is space an empty box that matter
> > exists in (Newton) or does space not exist unless it is filled
> > in some sense (Einstein)?
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Information Junction
> > Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> > Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> > matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
> > This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> > England
> > and Wales No. 6632177.
> > Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> > Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|