[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Interoperability - its natural basis

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ronald Stamper <stamper.measur@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:44:16 +0000
Message-id: <2DED9675-7FD6-412A-82E2-C6275B2D8F95@xxxxxxxxx>

Dear John,    (01)

I could not agree more strongly with you.    (02)

> JFS:  Different parts of an ontology may be relevant for people with
> different levels of expertise (example: physician, specialist,
> nurse, administrator, patient, and IT department).  But the
> part that any person is exposed to must be compatible with the
> terminology that person knows (either from specialized training
> or general background knowledge).    (03)

In our MEASUR methods we use only the words of the users.  All invented
vaguely word-like strings one finds in OWL, for example, are not  
permitted.    (04)

'Listening in' to the ontolog discussions I sense a widespread  belief  
that logic
and formal  methods will solve the problems of ontology development.    
makes me uneasy about the direction of some of the technically  
oriented work.    (05)

I am all for formal precision once we are sure we have fully grasped  
what we
need to be formal and precise about.  I thought that the age of  
logicism had
closed by mid-20th century.    (06)

That includes the overlooked, extraordinary degree of agreement that
ordinary folk have long established about their perceived world.  This  
largely transcends languages.    (07)

When they use a word to refer to something, they agree, in fact, about  
what other
things must be in place for their something to exist.  Our method of  
analysis serves to uncover and make explicit these assumptions.    (08)

The schemas constructed this way are remarkably stable across languages
and cultures as well as across the registers of various trades,  
professions and
specialisms.  Each concept labelled by the words in the schema has  
that fix the precise, local, specialised meaning.  They must be taken  
into account
when moving between groups but the guts of the semantics remain the  
same and
serve as a basis for more precise understanding.    (09)

The generic-specific hierarchies that play such an important role in  
OWL 'ontologies'
play only a minor role in our schemas because the are forms of  
cognitive norms without
ontological importance.  We use them to make some schemas rather more  
succinct.    (010)

I have placed two papers on a very amateurish website:  www.rstamper.co.uk 
.    (011)

Regards to all - I shall continue to listen in.    (012)

Ronald Stamper    (013)

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    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>