Christopher, (01)
Hard to disagree with you. A scientist must be unprejudiced, especially an
ontologist as a person dealing with whole worldviews. (02)
But bias, partiality, partisanship, opinions, particular views,
inclinations, specific attitudes are in the nature of human beings. This is
aggravated more by the prejudiced knowledge management practice. Don't want
disappoint you, but an impartial mind of a scientist is gone with a partial
public funding, fixed tenuring, etc. So you have to part with the romantic
ideas of objective analysis of pros and contras, impartial reviewing, honest
recognition of facts and truths. (03)
But you are right. Unlike other specialized researchers, ontologists must be
fully committed to a neutral and objective consolidation of all existing
models and theories on all aspects of the world, something what Wikipedia is
purposed to realize for human knowledge. (04)
One big problem: the level of some ontology projects are at the stage of
"demons causing diseases". As typical for this pre-scientific stage, their
exponents are very pushy, astute and quick to form all sorts of "excellency
networks", etc. to get funded the Middle-Age stuff. What to do and how to
stop? I don't know. (05)
I also find that there are many deep thoughts in your messages. If they have
been compact, then the reader could dig, get its diamonds, without digging
deeply, considering the email formatting. Appreciate your advice how to
advance a real ontological research and knowledge, getting rid of
pseudo-ontology projects. (06)
Regards
Azamat (07)
PS: as for the people mentioned, they know the reasons well, their FP7
partisanship induced my justified reaction. (08)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Azamat"
<abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is a good conversation? [was -
ISOmergedontology effort "MCO"] (09)
> Azamat,
>
> There are many ways of behaving like a dispassionate ontologist, but I
> certainly have the impression that this speculation on your part is not
> one of them:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> As such, there is no original NeOn toolkit but so-called OntoStudio,
>> which the EC "bought" for Euro 14, 7 m. No any sensible ontology but a
>> worn OEE of Ontoprise, spamming my email for several years. There is a
>> neon toolkit?
>> Now wonder what kind of business you are doing there with Roberto
>> Ciceroni as two Scientific Project Officers of Information Society and
>> Media Directorate-General, Knowledge and Content Technologies. Maybe
>> the Commissioner Potocnik knows?
>
> That is enough for me to support Peter in his request to you to take
> this evidently poisoned subject elsewhere.
>
> Many thanks, however, for most of your other contributions, which do
> usefully represent a significant viewpoint in the history of ontologies.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher.
>
>
>
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|