To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:41:56 +0000 (GMT) |
Message-id: | <545895.74628.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
John,
I must disagree with you. Citing big names will not help you though. The problem lies in the way you think of and create ontologies.
Since time and space is not included properly in the system, such errors are likely to pop up all the time.
We live in spacetime, and every exiting thing (object of an ontology) is finally defined by its position in space and time. Those parameters are unique. As himans produce copies of reality in various media, they cretae new objects that obbey the same rule. Everything that exists has a date of birth and a date of death possible to forecast.
On the other hand concepts (man made artefacts) are also products, that is objects and they also follow the same rule.
Why is this difficult to grasp?
Frank
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, 15 February, 2009 7:20:47 PM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] a skill of definition - "river" Mike and Mitch, I would like to comment on the following point: MB>> According to that definition the Okavango is not a river. MH> The Okavango surely is a strange kind of river. > > Do you really expect to hold natural language to the same > strictness standards as formal ones? This question has nothing to do with the differences between natural languages and formal languages. It is the result of trying to map a continuously variable world to a discrete set of labels (i.e., words, terms, symbols, concepts, signs). As a continuous fluid (at least to a degree far below human perception), there is a continuous range of ways that water can flow across a surface. For various purposes, people label those ways of flowing that happen to be significant for their interests. The way they group them and label the groupings depends on what they consider important in their environment. The kind of language, natural or artificial, is irrelevant. This is a commonly discussed issue in philosophy: Immanuel Kant: "Since the synthesis of empirical concepts is not arbitrary but based on experience, and as such can never be complete (for in experience ever new characteristics of the concept can be discovered), empirical concepts cannot be defined. "Thus only arbitrarily made concepts can be defined synthetically. Such definitions... could also be called declarations, since in them one declares one's thoughts or renders account of what one understands by a word. This is the case with mathematicians." Wittgenstein's *family resemblances* : Empirical concepts cannot be defined by a fixed set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Instead, they can only be taught by giving a series of examples and saying "These things and everything that resembles them are instances of the concept." Waismann's *open texture* : For any proposed definition of empirical concepts, new instances will arise that "obviously" belong to the category but are excluded by the definition. As Kant observed, precision depends on the kind of concept, not on the kind the language used to define the concept. As Waismann observed, if you state a precise definition for an empirical concept (such as 'river'), you will simply exclude many reasonable examples, such as the Okavango River. John Sowa _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] a skill of definition - "river", John F. Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Ravi Sharma |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] a skill of definition - "river", John F. Sowa |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] a skill of definition - "river", paola . dimaio |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |