[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:53:31 -0500
Message-id: <AA7FD001-A98F-4D1E-B42E-17C2B17E0266@xxxxxxxx>
On Apr 17, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Irwin, Jess M (IS) wrote:
> All,
> Am I the only one having trouble finding the relationship to  
> Ontology here.    (01)

Probably not the only one, but the issue at least concerns logic and  
logic, as most folks who have anything to do with ontology know, is at  
the heart of ontological engineering.    (02)

> Would this not be better served as personal correspondance or  
> related to a wikipedia topic on predicate calculus.    (03)

A great deal of the discussion in this forum concerns analysis and  
clarification.  Judgments of relevance can vary widely in an open  
forum. You have to do some picking and choosing.    (04)

> This forum is rapidly lossing focus, and interest or is that your  
> intent.    (05)

I appreciate the concern about the group losing focus, and you could  
certainly legitimately judge that my post illustrates the point, but  
your suggestion (insofar as I was able to parse the grammar) that it  
is my *intent* to decrease the group's focus is, to say the least,  
unwarranted.    (06)

> At the very least create a new subject, so I can automatically  
> discard it.    (07)

Fair enough.  You might have led by example here.    (08)

Cheers.    (09)

-chris    (010)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of  
> Christopher
> Menzel
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:14 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Ryan Kohl wrote:
>> Azamat seems to be right - an ad hominem argument would be of the  
>> form
>> "Statement X is true/false because person Y said Z"
> Or "did Z" or "is a Republican" or ....  Basically, any attempt to
> suggest Y's assertion is false by attacking Y's character or  
> questioning
> Y's motives is an ad hominem argument.  Also, I'd say that you only  
> want
> "false", rather than "true/false" above; an argument that appeals to
> what Y said or did as a reason for the *truth* of X is usually a
> so-called "appeal to authority".  Would you agree, Ryan?
>> Suggesting that somebody is a hypocrite or inconsistent has the form
>> "Person X is Y"
>> So the latter doesn't indeed seem to be ad hominem.  Rather, it has
>> the form of a personal attack, or slander.
> Right.
> -chris    (011)

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    (012)

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