Ferenc, John and Pavithra,
I understand that philosophy tries to
distinguish between those things (objects) that are real, and which “block
the observer’s view”, but that distinction is unnecessary in
software engineering. Even humanly generated unreal constructs such as bank
accounts, transactions and property rights are represented by marks in automated
symbol manipulating systems, which cannot, by construction, distinguish the symbols
from reality. As Ferenc says, they are all “objects” in the
ontological point of view even when they don’t have a physical existence.
It is the correspondence of marks to the
observer’s personal interpretation of objects (real and imagined) that
matters to ontology as implemented. Ontologies that distinguish among real and
unreal objects may be interesting, but are not useful in engineering models as
implemented in enterprise architectures.
So we should distinguish which perspective
from which we are debating each of these distinctions. For philosophers,
objects are physical, and for EA construction, it doesn’t matter for most
applications.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010
8:48 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-forum] language
vs logic ambiguity and starting withdefiinitions
the definition of Objects the way Ferenc
has defined looks good, however it is limited to things that have physical form
and attributes.
That has not been the whole story.
Concepts are also objects - man made artfefacts, The usual way to see concepts
is intensionality and extensionality, which is a good approximation, but
could be taken further.
If you are interested in that, give me you
email adress, because I do not want to bore the rets of us with repetitions,
hesitation or diversion :-)
Ontology and Semantic Analysis may have to
address other things that may not have visible physical form but exists and
have indirect form of attributes and / or behavior. Or we may be
addressing the change of behavior. For example, particular form of
illness which is not an object by itself but functioning of certain physical or
behavioral attributes and change in condition of existing physical
behavior.. Semantic Analysis has to capture such things.
I agree, but I am, not r an engineer.