[Ian Bailey] >> Hi Andreas,
>>...
The big challenge in ontology is to figure out what’s different about a
system to any other physical item. ...
[Pat Hayes]
> Ahem. Allow me to suggest that this is an excellent
example of how not to approach ontology engineering. Words like 'system'
(and 'organization' and 'context' and many others) which are used in informal
language as loose, vague descriptors but have been co-opted by more formal uses
as classifiers, are not going to be useful ontology categories. Setting out to
decide where their precise edges are is like trying to nail down the ocean.
It will never succeed, because there is no fact of the matter to decide what
the truth is.
+1
[PH continues] > (At best, maybe a PatC-ish process of
formal voting in a well-behaved body of highly motivated people, all following
Roberts rules of order, might eventually come to a decision, but it will be one
which satisfies nobody.)
[PatC] Now I am cut to the quick. I have consistently said
that I believe that attempts to impose a terminology should not be part of the
process of ontology building, and where different people feel they need to use
a term in different senses, *all* of those senses should be represented,
each labeled by a different term (perhaps using namespace qualifiers), and the terminological
needs can be satisfied with relations from the individual senses to the
differing terminologies. Voting should only be used when issues arise
that cannot be resolved other than by voting. Terminology is not one of
those issues.
I agree with the remainder of PH’s comment.
PatC
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:20 PM
To: ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Means for Systems Engineering
On Jan 23, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Ian Bailey wrote:
...
The big challenge in ontology is to figure out what’s different about a
system to any other physical item. ...
Ahem. Allow me to suggest that this is an excellent example
of how not to approach ontology engineering. Words like 'system' (and
'organization' and 'context' and many others) which are used in informal
language as loose, vague descriptors but have been co-opted by more formal uses
as classifiers, are not going to be useful ontology categories. Setting out to
decide where their precise edges are is like trying to nail down the ocean. It
will never succeed, because there is no fact of the matter to decide what the
truth is. (At best, maybe a PatC-ish process of formal voting in a well-behaved
body of highly motivated people, all following Roberts rules of order, might
eventually come to a decision, but it will be one which satisfies
nobody.)
I have in the past made lists of alternative
"definitions" of the word 'system', and there were dozens. My
favorite is the one given in what was at the time (maybe15 years ago) widely
cited as a foundational text in general systems theory: "a system is a
set, S, with a distinguished subset, T". In other words, anything at all
can be thought of as a system; and this is what one should expect, just as
anything at all can the thought of as a "thing" or an
"entity" or a "context" or ... These are not natural kind
words: they do not partition a meaningful subset out of the universe of
entities. Rather, they are words that indicate a kind of intention, what
Dennett calls a "stance", towards a thing: it is being treated as
a system. But anything can, under appropriate circumstances, be so treated.
Even subatomic particles, it turns out, are made of quarks.
Now of course, various organizations use the word in
particular ways, with more exclusive intended meanings whose boundaries can be
investigated. But different organizations will draw their meaning boundaries in
different places, sometimes wildly different. Again, not a good start for
creating a useful ontology.
------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|