[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Past, Present, and Future of Ontology

To: <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 23:11:37 +0100
Message-id: <4a1f0c22.0508d00a.3b5e.468c@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Ian,



At the risk of dragging this thread out, could you please elaborate (in a few sentences) what your understanding of “Context” is ?


I think everyone’s agreed that context is essential,

[MW] Actually I don’t. I agree that context is used for what you cannot be bothered to make explicit, and the answer is simple – be bothered to make it explicit, then you have no need for context.




Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 560 302 3685

Mobile: +44 750 3385279





This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.



but I think you have to agree with the others that “context” is a term with very many senses. It covers concepts ranging from simple whole-part predicates, through social construction to illocutionary force and deontic logic (don’t ask me what all those big words mean, I just hear Partridge say them a lot, and like so sound clever myself from time to time). Although you sometimes have to live with woolly, not-completely-analysed concepts in an ontology, I think “context” is way over in the woolly corner and needs some disambiguation, deconfliction and deconstruction (and probably some other words beginning with “d”) before it can live in anyone’s ontology.






From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard H. McCullough
Sent: 28 May 2009 20:16
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Past, Present, and Future of Ontology


----- Original Message -----

From: "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
>> #### I grant that you are a great scholar, John.
>> #### But can't you put aside your academic bias
> Be careful.  "academic bias" is a favorite epithet among cranks the 
> world over, who blame their lack of acceptance within the academic 
> community on prejudice (or envy, or the desire for power, or...) 
> rather than any shortcomings in their work.  I'm supposing you don't 
> want to be considered among their company.
>> #### long enough to consider whether I am right or not?
> It is *because* John is a scholar with a vast knowledge of the history 
> of AI and KR that it is so obvious to him why your work does not begin 
> to measure up to the standards of the field.  What *you* need to do is 
> set "put aside" the idea that you have single-handedly solved the most 
> vexing problems of AI and KR and follow John's advice: Do your homework.


I do not doubt John's knowledge.

The fact is, he never addresses my ideas.

He "cops out" by telling me to do my homework.

        If I do not do my homework,

        then my ideas are wrong.

This is an obvious non sequitur.

This is what I am calling "academic bias".

Dick McCullough

> Chris Menzel

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)

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