If we are not willing to put the effort in, either nothing will happen
or someone else will.
If other groups do define the terms that we leave undefine than we will
have to adapt to them regardless of their logic.
If others define the metatdata and build the repository, then we will be
on the outside looking in. (01)
Ron (02)
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Len,
> I definitely agree, and wish you good luck :-)
>
> prior attempts to do similar things have generated
> very interesting and long discussions......but never ended up in any
> usable agreement
>
> I think when trying to define the word 'ontology' people have been
> discussing for years, and generated over twenty valid definitions, and
> still struggle to put their points accross precisely, as each
> definition can be
> interpreted differently by different people who place it in different
> context (relating to different axioms)
>
> I think it may be also agree that a definition should not be longer
> than a sentence or a phrase or two at the most, and, that more than
> one definitions is possible, as long as whoever uses the term (we had
> a long discussion about the meaning of 'term' two years back)
> specifies what meaning they are referencing.
>
> Kind of really representative issuesf the challenges that ontology
> engineering faces
>
> Despite the lack of results so far, however, it has been extremely
> entertaining and educational
>
> Opening a glossary page on the wiki could be like opening another
> pandora's box, but hay
> thats the name of the game I guess
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Len Yabloko <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> John and all,
>>
>> Thank you for the link. I have followed it and have some comments:
>>
>>> As useful background, I often cite the following tutorial
>>> by the philosopher Norman Swartz:
>>>
>>> http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/definitions.htm
>>>
>>>
>> I found it not quite satisfactory for the purposes of this forum. IMHO - it
>lacks interdisciplinary connections in defining the terms which are equally
>important to other fields besides philosophy and linguistics. I doubt that
>this tutorial will answer the need for suitable common reference as asked
>repeatedly by the participants here.
>>
>> For example, following explanation:
>> "The extension of a term or phrase is understood to be the timeless class of
>all things which properly 'fall under' or are described by that phrase."
>> This may be workable for linguist, but not for computer scientists or
>mathematician (although I am not one of them).
>>
>> Here is quite different definition of the same term in
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(predicate_logic)
>> "The extension of a predicate ? a truth-valued function ? is the set of
>tuples of values that, used as arguments, satisfy the predicate. Such a set of
>tuples is a relation."
>> In this case at least there a link to alternative definition from another
>field, and even suggestion that definitions should be merged. However, no one
>so far had attempted to that publicly.
>>
>> I recall several discussion on this forum that attempted to connect the
>terms "intension", "extension", "class", "predicate" etc. into coherent
>framework, but IMO failed to do so for the very same reason - lack of
>interdisciplinary definition that would satisfy the need of constructive
>discussion.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I can not offer any better alternative. However I do believe
>that it is possible. May be we should attempt this relatively humble objective
>before trying to develop yet another FO or repository of such. I think step
>one in that direction would be to accept the absence of common definitions,
>which should be apparent from following discussion over a long period of time
>(as I did).
>>
>> If anyone agrees with me I would suggest to begin with notions of
>"intention" and "extension" as it relates to notions of "model" and "theory".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|