"Funnily enough, there was a chap on BBC Radio 4 this week discussing
scientific hubris. Turns out that throughout history there has been a
tendency to compare the latest gizmo with the human brain - powered looms,
steam engines, telephone switchboards, computers, etc. I wonder what the
next thing will be ?"
Ian,
Now see how harmful might be your extensional position. No meaning, just
physical reference.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Bailey" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards (01)
> Hi Azamat,
>
> Thanks for pointing out what a good ontology is. I always wondered what
> one
> looked like ! Maybe we need some kind of Hachette guide to ontologies ?
>
> I have to say that what you're suggesting sounds a bit too "social
> science"
> for an engineer like me (I doubt that scanner doohicky you mentioned would
> pick up little more than a dull outline of a pint of beer from my brain).
> I
> think I'll just stick to Chris's extensional approach and suffer any
> consequences that may result.
>
> Funnily enough, there was a chap on BBC Radio 4 this week discussing
> scientific hubris. Turns out that throughout history there has been a
> tendency to compare the latest gizmo with the human brain - powered looms,
> steam engines, telephone switchboards, computers, etc. I wonder what the
> next thing will be ? Anyone responding with "The Semantic Web" must
> surely
> be banned from this forum for life.
>
>
> Have a nice weekend
> --
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
> Sent: 23 January 2009 19:22
> To: ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> Cc: just@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>
> Ian,
> The referential model of meaning had its use when semantics was in the
> stage
>
> of conception. Today, the extensional models are largely irrelevant to the
> challenges of the complex world.
>
> There is a hot topic in neuroscience called "mind reading" with fMRI,
> aiming
>
> to use neuroimaging techniques to read the brain activation patterns by
> detecting blood flow in the brain areas. Recently, it was widely published
> that the technique of neural information processing affords reading your
> thoughts and intentions by means of scanners:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694713_page2.shtml.
> Such a poor alchemy comes from two main reasons: bad ontology and
> defective
> semantics.
> Good ontology posits that there are at least three worlds: the physical
> world of material entities (as living organisms with brain processes); the
> mental world of experiences as thought processes; the meaningful world of
> the thought contents (institutions, languages, works of arts, social
> norms,
> laws, etc.). Semantically, we have two related but distinct realms here,
> the
>
> universe of extension and denotation and reference (res extensa) and the
> universe of intension and connotation. Neglecting or mixing the worlds, as
> brain processes with cognitive operations as thought experience
> (subjective
> meaning, res cogitans), and the thought processes with the thought's
> contents (objective meanings), can lead you to all sorts of pseudoscience
> and fictitious creations, as Just's "thought identification technology",
> just exciting for national security agencies and laymen.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Bailey" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>
>
>> Hi Azamat,
>>
>> I think Chris is re-building the site at the moment. The IDEAS Foundation
>> is
>> published though.
>>
>> You said;
>>
>> " Still i have an impression the approach is dealing with an extensional
>> model
>> of things, looking only for the framework of basic particulars. Besides,
>> particulars and individuals should be distinguished; for only a
>> particular
>> is an instance of a universal, while the individual is the continuing
>> entity, like as a person or material thing."
>>
>> ...about which, I'm not qualified to answer. However, that's never
>> stopped
>> me before. So, yes you're right, but the extensionality also covers
>> identification of classes (by the extent of their members) and tuples (by
>> their ends). The ontologies (BORO and IDEAS) also have a naming pattern
>> that
>> allows any given THING to have any number of names, each of which belongs
>> to
>> a NameType. The ontology is therefore separated into Object Space and
>> Name
>> Space (don't think XML namespace). There's stuff that exists
>> (individuals,
>> types, tuples) and there are names for things (which actually turn out to
>> be
>> types also). I think Chris based this on some of Quine's ideas about
>> reference. The book to read is "The Roots of Reference". It's slightly
>> less
>> pompous than the usual philosophy text, as it's the transcript of a
>> number
>> of lectures. It still manages to be sufficiently obscure to prevent the
>> average person from understanding what is actually a really simple
>> principle (the foreword is actually pretty much all you need to read),
>> but
>> hey that's philosophy ! The bit about names being types comes from
>> P.F.Strawson, I think.
>>
>> I've probably mangled all the philosophy references here, as it's not
>> really
>> my thing (except for down the pub, obviously). Chris and Matthew will be
>> able to set you straight on this though.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
>> Sent: 22 January 2009 19:04
>> To: ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>>
>> Ian,
>> Being a bit infected with your enthusiasm, i tried to see what kind of
>> beast
>>
>> this BORO Reference Ontologies might be, just to find out that they all
>> under construction: http://www.boroprogram.org/boro_program/ront.htm.
>> Still i have an impression the approach is dealing with an extensional
>> model
>>
>> of things, looking only for the framework of basic particulars. Besides,
>> particulars and individuals should be distinguished; for only a
>> particular
>> is an instance of a universal, while the individual is the continuing
>> entity, like as a person or material thing.
>>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>> http://www.eis.com.cy
>>
>>
>> ---- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ian Bailey" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>>
>>
>>> Hi Azamat,
>>>
>>> I wasn't trying to say that all you need is extension - we still need
>>> names
>>> for things, it's just that with the BORO approach, the names are added
>>> *after* you've figured out what it is you're dealing with (by extent).
>>> This
>>> is why we chose it for IDEAS - we were fed up of endlessly arguing about
>>> the
>>> meaning of words. I agree structure alone isn't enough, but humans (esp.
>>> the
>>> ones that call themselves "professionals") are so obsessed with words
>>> you
>>> have to take a very radical approach to extension to stop them forever
>>> falling back into their comfort zone of terminology.
>>>
>>> The problem is that people like to cling onto names as though they're
>>> the
>>> only things that matters. Even if you know all about the theories of
>>> sense
>>> and reference, it's human nature to still concentrate on the names of
>>> things
>>> (I do it, and even I've seen Chris and Matthew occasionally get hung up
>>> on
>>> names). It can be quite a painful process to get someone to really think
>>> extensionally. The people who seem to suffer the most though are data
>>> modellers and "information scientists". There's a process of
>>> enlightenment/torture that you see when you run the BORO process in a
>>> group:
>>>
>>> 1) The people in the room think they're all talking about the same
>>> thing,
>>> because they use the same word for it (This is a state of blissful
>>> ignorance
>>> that is about to be shattered. The BORO process is about to turn these
>>> happy, co-habiting, fluffy, big-eyed bunnies into rabid arguing
>>> machines.
>>> Some of them may never speak to each other again).
>>> 1b) Or, they all think they're special and there's no way that the other
>>> guy
>>> could have such a sophisticated understanding as them, because they've
>>> been
>>> working this stuff for decades (don't ask them how many real commercial
>>> projects they've actually worked on, you don't want them storming out of
>>> the
>>> room in a huff so early in the process). If you want to see this in
>>> action,
>>> attend a meeting of any international standards body that has an
>>> information
>>> slant to it.
>>> 2) Then we start doing BORO - the extensional analysis for a particular
>>> subject. As we get towards the end of this analysis, the people in the
>>> room
>>> start to get a bit twitchy, and really try to fight the method
>>> (regardless
>>> if you started with 1 or 1b). It's nasty. It's like watching a heroin
>>> addict
>>> go through withdrawal symptoms, or a scene from the exorcist. They get
>>> angrier and more abusive as they see their high concepts being torn down
>>> to
>>> simple reality. They will try and defend the indefensible, walk out of
>>> the
>>> room, threaten to tell their mum, etc. I live in hope that one day I'll
>>> see
>>> a head spin and projectile vomit over the assembled crowd, but perhaps
>>> I've
>>> watched too many horror movies.
>>> 3) Once the evil spirit has been exorcised, calm descends, and we try
>>> and
>>> figure out where our names and concepts actually apply to the resulting
>>> section of ontology. Usually, this bit is painless - we're back in the
>>> comfort zone of terminology again.
>>> 4) Then we go onto the next job, and the same people go cold turkey all
>>> over
>>> again, but this time carrying the malice from the previous session with
>>> them, not to mention the caffeine they had in the break. Not nice.
>>> 5) After about ten of these, they start to become a little numb and a
>>> little
>>> more pliant (I'm told interrogators work this way). They lose the will
>>> to
>>> fight at that point and start to go along with the process. This is when
>>> progress really starts to be made. They've let go of the naming hang-up
>>> and
>>> are taking part in the process. Occasionally, some go into passive
>>> resistance mode, and simply don't take part other than to occasionally
>>> snipe
>>> from the sidelines, or work on the budget holders outside the meetings
>>> to
>>> try and get the project canned. I guess they were the kids who never
>>> "played
>>> nice" at kindergarten.
>>>
>>> I realise this sounds like brainwashing, and it probably is an evil
>>> scheme
>>> for world domination cooked up by Partridge. However, it gets the job
>>> done
>>> and that appeals to simpletons like me. Maybe I've been brainwashed too.
>>>
>>> I should add that Chris never intended BORO to be a group activity -
>>> it's
>>> original purpose is for analysis of legacy data to re-engineer next
>>> generation information systems. If you do BORO the way it was intended,
>>> you
>>> have only yourself and piles of old data to argue with, so it's a bit
>>> quicker than our "group sessions", but offers fewer moments of
>>> schadenfreude.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> --
>>> Ian Bailey
>>> www.modelfutures.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
>>> Sent: 21 January 2009 22:09
>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>>>
>>> Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:08 PM, Ian Bailey wrote:
>>> "The IDEAS work is extensional, because it saves us arguing about what
>>> we're
>>>
>>> modelling - it
>>> always comes down to extent, which doesn't rely on words or logic."
>>> "My main point was that if you stick to an extensional approach, you can
>>> be
>>> pretty sure what you're referring to."
>>>
>>> Any meaning (significance) is composed of sense (connotation) and
>>> reference
>>>
>>> (denotation), or intension and extension. If somebody insists on the
>>> special
>>>
>>> view that meaning is either just content (intension) (like Leibniz) or
>>> just
>>> the thing referred to (like Okham), he is ignoring the long history of
>>> semantic studies. If there is a construct, then there is the reference
>>> class and the sense (purport, intension, import) given in a context.
>>> The
>>> first one is the totality of entities referred to; the second one is the
>>> totality of associations and relationships (as logical and conceptual
>>> relatives). The ordered pair of the sense and the reference makes the
>>> meaning of the construct, be it a concept, statement or theory. The like
>>> goes for symbols as words and their significance.
>>>
>>> Summing: neither intensional models nor extensional models (as set
>>> theory)
>>> are separately correct, but only as integrated.
>>>
>>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Ian Bailey" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "'Patrick Cassidy'" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>; "'[ontolog-forum] '"
>>> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:08 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Pat (C),
>>>>
>>>> I agree (partially) about the logic of the ontology being key, but
>>>> there's
>>>> more to it than that. A model can be logically correct but still not
>>>> refer
>>>> to anything real or useful (e.g. "Blegd-A", etc.). It can also be
>>>> logically
>>>> correct and still be an awful model (see 99% of the world's data
>>>> models).
>>>> The point I was trying to get across is that you need to be sure what
>>>> you're
>>>> referring to - logical structure alone doesn't assure this. The IDEAS
>>>> work
>>>> is extensional, because it saves us arguing about what we're
>>>> modelling -
>>>> it
>>>> always comes down to extent, which doesn't rely on words or logic.
>>>>
>>>> As for your other point, machine reasoning and inference don't really
>>>> feature in the IDEAS work - we wanted an accurate model of the area of
>>>> discourse we were covering - military capability. I like that IDEAS
>>>> (and
>>>> BORO and ISO15926) are extensional and higher order, because as a
>>>> pragmatic,
>>>> hairy-a**ed mechanical engineer I am comfortable that I know what I'm
>>>> dealing with. I can see there are types of types in the real world, so
>>>> it
>>>> must be a higher-order world (why flatten in ?). And I can see that
>>>> there
>>>> are things with spatio-temporal extent, and that gives me a nice way to
>>>> irrefutably identify stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Chris has this theory that a model has to be at least as complex as its
>>>> subject in order to be useful (I've probably butchered this theory in
>>>> one
>>>> sentence). However I think it applies to human understanding too. BORO
>>>> is
>>>> really simple at its heart, and my simple mind isn't comfortable with
>>>> anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Ian (B)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pat@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: 21 January 2009 05:19
>>>> To: ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
>>>> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
>>>> standards
>>>>
>>>> Ian,
>>>> Re:
>>>> [IB]
>>>>> nations. The initial approach we took is very similar to the one
>>>>> suggested
>>>>> by John below...and it was a miserable failure. If you try to work
>>>>> concept-by-concept, it's doomed to failure. You can never be sure that
>>>>> you
>>>>> have full consensus between everyone in the room, because you can't be
>>>>> sure
>>>>> that one person's understanding of a concept is precisely the same as
>>>>> another's (no matter how long you debate it). One of two things
>>>>> happen;
>>>>> you
>>>>> make no progress because you can't reach agreement, or one dominant
>>>>> personality railroads the whole thing.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. That's why the "meaning" of an ontology element can only be
>>>> its
>>>> logical specification, and how that behaves in inference. People donlt
>>>> "agree" or "disagree" on the meaning of an ontological specification,
>>>> they
>>>> observe (or do thought experiments) how it will behave in inference.
>>>> Its
>>>> inferential behavior is its only "meaning".
>>>> If different competent ontologists (say, A, B, and C) want different
>>>> logical structures to be labeled with the same label (say, "Blegd"), no
>>>> problem. The different structures are given different labels. e.g.
>>>> Blegd-A, Blegd-B, and Blegd-C (each of which is mapped to "Blegd" in a
>>>> different terminology). The results don't depend on consensus for
>>>> terminology usage and the debates don't go on forever, they are
>>>> resolved
>>>> rapidly by voting if issues more complicated than that trivial one
>>>> arise.
>>>> In the consortium project I have suggested, all participants will be
>>>> aware before starting of the procedures used to resolve disputes, and
>>>> if
>>>> they don't like the procedures, they don't participate. I am still
>>>> certain
>>>> that there will be enough willing participants to form a large enough
>>>> user
>>>> community for the resulting ontology to assure that it is more widely
>>>> used
>>>> than any other foundation ontology.
>>>>
>>>> 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 Ian Bailey
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:23 AM
>>>>> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
>>>>> standards
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the IDEAS Group we have a consortium of a reasonable size (with
>>>>> representatives from the defence depts of Australia, Canada, Sweden,
>>>>> UK
>>>>> &
>>>>> US). We didn't actually set out to develop an ontology. What we wanted
>>>>> to do
>>>>> was share information (related to enterprise architecture) between the
>>>> In my experience over several
>>>>> standards projects, the loudest voice rarely belongs to the most
>>>>> competent
>>>>> person, so neither of these outcomes is favourable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Facing a lack of modelling progress in IDEAS, we went back to the
>>>>> drawing
>>>>> board and decided we'd try a formal method for analysis. We chose
>>>>> Chris
>>>>> Partridge's BORO method, as a few of us had read his book and wanted
>>>>> to
>>>>> give
>>>>> it a try. It has the advantage of ignoring ideas such as "concepts"
>>>>> and
>>>>> "terms". It's ruthlessly extensional - individuals are identified by
>>>>> their
>>>>> physical extent, classes by their members, and relationships by their
>>>>> ends.
>>>>> Once you've figured out something's extent, you can then apply
>>>>> whatever
>>>>> names you want to it. The process can be achingly slow, but at least
>>>>> it
>>>>> gets
>>>>> results, and the results can't be refuted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so long after we started on IDEAS, I went to a NATO workshop on
>>>>> terminology. It was facilitated by someone we were told was a guru at
>>>>> this
>>>>> sort of thing. His approach was to work concept-by-concept and we hit
>>>>> the
>>>>> same problems we'd just got over in IDEAS. In a three day workshop
>>>>> they
>>>>> managed to produce three terms for the glossary. There were about
>>>>> fifteen
>>>>> people in the room, so that's fifteen man-days per concept. If you
>>>>> plan
>>>>> to
>>>>> work on Longman's dictionary, you'd better have plenty of time on your
>>>>> hands
>>>>> and the patience to deal with a room full of experts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another tip is to sort out your ontic categories early on. I'm not
>>>>> sure
>>>>> OWL
>>>>> and RDFS give you a proper foundation for ontology development - there
>>>>> are
>>>>> some very strange things in the W3C spec about how an individual in
>>>>> one
>>>>> ontology can be a class in another (bizarre even in an intensional
>>>>> approach). We published the IDEAS foundation elements on the website -
>>>>> http://www.ideasgroup.org/3Foundation/ - and you're more than welcome
>>>>> to
>>>>> re-use them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not suggesting you use BORO if you set out to develop your
>>>>> foundation
>>>>> ontology, but I think you do need some very strong criteria about how
>>>>> you
>>>>> identify things. Going extensional solves the problem of identity, but
>>>>> does
>>>>> mean that the ontology developers have to think a lot harder about
>>>>> what
>>>>> they're doing, and ground all their work in the real world. Not
>>>>> usually
>>>>> a
>>>>> problem if they're philosophers or logicians, but if they're computer
>>>>> scientists, you're going to spend the first six months coaxing them
>>>>> out
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Matrix and back into the real world. Intensional approaches seem
>>>>> to
>>>>> suit
>>>>> information technology folks a bit better, but I'm not aware of any
>>>>> water-tight methods in this area.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem in standards development is one of personalities (and
>>>>> there
>>>>> are
>>>>> some very strong ones in information management disciplines).
>>>>> Additionally,
>>>>> there are issues of reputation and commercial interests to consider
>>>>> (if
>>>>> a
>>>>> standard goes a certain way, it could close the market for a vendor,
>>>>> or
>>>>> negate ten years of academic research). One way to bypass the egos and
>>>>> hidden agendas is to get them all to sign up to a method that
>>>>> guarantees
>>>>> results. They might not all like the results they get, but at least
>>>>> they're
>>>>> defensible. My old job was developing ISO data standards (esp. in
>>>>> ISO10303)
>>>>> and I've got to say that if we'd had a method like BORO when
>>>>> developing
>>>>> some
>>>>> the data models there, we'd have done it in half the time and saved a
>>>>> lot of
>>>>> arguing (some of the people involved still don't speak to each other).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian Bailey
>>>>> www.modelfutures.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
>>>>> Sowa
>>>>> Sent: 20 January 2009 07:35
>>>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
>>>>> standards
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat,
>>>>>
>>>>> I know *exactly* what you are trying to do, and your comments
>>>>> show that you haven't seriously examined the definitions in
>>>>> Longman's dictionary, which you keep citing as a paradigm.
>>>>>
>>>>> PC> It is clear that you have completely misinterpreted the
>>>>> > proposal I have been making.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll summarize your proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Find a set of primitive concepts that are common to all
>>>>> natural languages. These would be similar to the defining
>>>>> vocabulary of Longman's dictionary for students who are
>>>>> learning English as a second language.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Use those primitives to define a much larger vocabulary of
>>>>> terms and thereby relate them by means of those primitives.
>>>>>
>>>>> This idea is not bad for writing a dictionary that is intended
>>>>> to be used by students who *already* learned the concepts in
>>>>> their native country and just need to learn the English words
>>>>> for them. Just look at a typical definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> energy. The power which does work and drives machines:
>>>>> atomic/electrical energy | the energy of the sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the students had already learned the concept, this kind
>>>>> of definition would enable them to relate the English word
>>>>> 'energy' to their previous knowledge. But for an ontology,
>>>>> this definition is worthless. In physics, the words 'energy',
>>>>> 'work', and 'power' express three different, but related
>>>>> concepts that are defined by different formulas. For an
>>>>> ontology, the above definition would be worse than useless
>>>>> -- because it happens to be false. Almost every definition
>>>>> in that dictionary is either false or hopelessly vague.
>>>>>
>>>>> PC> The whole point of creating an FO by a large consortium
>>>>> > is precisely to be certain that the views representing many
>>>>> > different interests and ways to express knowledge are taken
>>>>> > into account...
>>>>>
>>>>> A consortium or committee is good for evaluating proposals,
>>>>> but they can't solve the unsolvable. Just look at the way
>>>>> the Newtonian concepts of space, time, mass, and energy
>>>>> evolved in the progression to relativity and quantum mechanics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those words are used in all three theories (and many other
>>>>> variations). But those words are *not* defined in terms of
>>>>> primitives. They are related to one another by various
>>>>> equations. Furthermore, the equations in the three theories
>>>>> are not only different; they are contradictory. There is
>>>>> nothing that remotely resembles defining primitives.
>>>>>
>>>>> That observation is true for every formal ontology. There
>>>>> are no primitives. There are just equations (or other
>>>>> kinds of formulas) that relate the terms. The words in
>>>>> one theory and its successors are frequently the same
>>>>> or similar. But the equations that relate them are
>>>>> very different.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a fundamental reason why it's impossible to use any
>>>>> subset of natural language vocabulary as ontological primitives:
>>>>> NL words are intended to be used in a open-ended number of ways,
>>>>> but ontological terms are absolutely precise within the scope
>>>>> of a particular theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> That distinction creates an inherent conflict:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. There are common ideas expressed in the basic vocabularies
>>>>> of many different languages, as many people such as Len Talmy
>>>>> and Anna Wierzbicka have shown. But the corresponding words
>>>>> are vague, with many different *microsenses* that vary from
>>>>> one "language game" to another.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Formal ontologies and scientific theories require sharply
>>>>> defined terms that denote values that can be measured
>>>>> precisely. Those terms are defined only within a formal
>>>>> theory (or language game), and any paraphrase in the words
>>>>> of #1 is at best a vague approximation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Longman's defining terms (or anything similar, such as
>>>>> Wierzbicka's primitives) are inherently vague. They cannot
>>>>> be used to define ontological terms that must have a precise,
>>>>> formally defined sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|