On Feb 10, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Azamat wrote: John wrote: No, most definitely *not*! I strongly agree with Pat Hayes: PH> Getting such agreement is both unnecessary and probably impossible. It would achieve nothing other the creation of
a huge and unusable formalization which would then be ignored
for almost all applications, being too unwieldy and needlessly
complicated and mired in pointless controversy to be usefully
applied to any particular domain.
John and Pat, That's a bad confusion.
We disagree with you, but we are not confused. Or not on this point, at any rate. It looks somebody of us is missing the whole point
of standard ontology. The underlying axioms and truths, fundamental
principles and facts, "a huge and unusable formalization".
As that is not a sentence, I am unable to see quite what your point is.
As close examples, take the set theory formal axioms: extension, empty set,
separation, pairing, union, power set, infinity, choice, replacement,
restriction.
I know set theory. Now, what is your point here? Set theory is a good example of our point. It is a very restricted, focussed formal theory - ontology, if you like - about one, single, topic. Sets comprise its entire universe of discourse, and nothing else. It does not set out to be a universal ontology in any way: it is not about events, times, things-in-themselves, continuants, etc. etc..: it is simply and totally about sets. Other formalized branches of mathematics are similarly restricted: group theory is entirely about groups, etc.. Or, better look at the basic concepts of the biological
sciences: Unity (of living substance); Diversity (of life), Evolution
(natutal selection); State (homeostasis); Interrelationships (of living
things), Continuity (of generations).
Those are some important concepts from biology, yes (though I think "Unity" might be a bit oldfashioned these days). So, what is your point? Do you mean to imply that any ontology of these topics must be universal in some way? (Why?) All the living things and the life
processes are defined in terms of the few biological principles
Now, that is just plain false. Ask any biologist. There may indeed be a few fundamental, important principless (though you would be hard pressed to get a group of, say, 20 specialists who would agree on what they were): but to say that everything is defined in terms of them is just wrong. , which are
nothing but the extension of ontological principles to the domain of life:
Substance, Unity, Diversity, Change, State, and Relationship.
And that is so vague that I don't think it can be argued one way or the other.
I still havn't understood what exactly you are saying here, or what all this has to do with standards.
Pat Hayes Azamat Abdoullaev ----- Original Message ----- From: "John F. Sowa" < sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "[ontolog-forum]" < ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology Pat C, Pat H, and Ian,
PC> ... there is the practical question of whether we intend
to recommend one foundation ontology as the basis for the
formalization, or take a hands-off position and let a
thousand incompatible flowers bloom?
Three points: (1) there is no foundation ontology that anyone
could hope to recommend, (2) there are already thousands of
flowers and weeds, and (3) there is no consensus about which
are the flowers and which are the weeds.
Therefore, we cannot recommend any single ontology, and we
must accommodate the totality of those that have proved to
be useful to at least some narrow group.
PH> Nobody heeds such an all-encompassing ontology, however.
Each standardization effort is devoted to a relatively narrow
range of topics and concerns, compared to the full range of
all possible standards.
I strongly agree.
IB> ... you need to get your hands dirty and look at the legacy
data. You can carry out academic exercises mapping models and
doing gap analyses, but these never work when it comes to the
real world.
Certainly. Anything that has lasted long enough to become
a legacy has passed the most important test of all: it works.
That is an enormous advantage over proposals that have not
been tested or deployed on any practical application.
PC> I feel strongly that getting some agreement among at least
one large user community on the content of *some* foundation
ontology should be a very high priority objective until it
is accomplished, regardless of how often we have talked
about it. Other tasks are IMHO at least secondary, and
perhaps dependent on the first.
No, most definitely *not*! I strongly agree with Pat Hayes:
PH> Getting such agreement is both unnecessary and probably
impossible. It would achieve nothing other the creation of
a huge and unusable formalization which would then be ignored
for almost all applications, being too unwieldy and needlessly
complicated and mired in pointless controversy to be usefully
applied to any particular domain.
A working system always trumps a pie-in-the-sky dream.
As a theoretician, I am in favor of dreaming. But as somebody
who worked at a profit-making institution for 30 years, I
realize the importance of grounding those dreams in reality.
Therefore, the primary requirement for any theoretical proposal
must be a smooth migration path from where we are today (namely,
the thousands of weeds and flowers) to the promised land flowing
with milk and honey.
John
PS: That metaphor of milk and honey reminds me of a cartoon
that showed Moses leading a bunch of people dressed in flowing
robes, dripping with sticky white stuff. We need a migration
path that takes advantage of the sticky stuff, instead of
getting mired in it.
_________________________________________________________________
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxShared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1JTo 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
|