Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

[Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:

Matthew,
  You just disproved your own point:

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"

Yes

that
can be described in terms of more primitive elements

No. That is the crucial point: your overriding assumption that all conceptual conflicts can be resolved by moving to something 'more primitive' is just plain false. They can't all be resolved that way. If they could have been, the history of science would have been a lot less rocky and controversial that it in fact was. 

This whole discussion is silly. There is not, never has been, and never will be a single all-encompassing single world-view suitable for all purposes. The idea is childish and naive, and should not even be being discussed in a professional forum. Even if it were possible, it would only be the slightest economic value if everyone could be persuaded to adopt it, which is clearly never going to happen. The idea belongs in post-apocalyptic science fiction, but not in the real world.

; or (2) both theories
are alternative logically consistent views of the same phenomenon

They are logically inconsistent views of the same phenomenon. Such cases are legion. There is a basic fact of ontology engineering that everyone needs to understand: the fact that two people are using the same formalism and describing the same real-world phenomenon does not guarantee that they will produce consistent ontologies. 

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.

Why? You keep saying this, but there is not a shred of evidence to support it, and all the accumulated wisdom of literature and science strongly suggests the opposite. There are no "primitive" concepts. Get used to it. 

Pat

 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.

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

------------------------------------------------------------

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   

40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office

Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax

FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)