I understand that philosophy tries to distinguish between those things (objects) that are real, and which “block the observer’s view”,
To be precise it is not philosophy that tries to do that. We should get rid of metaphores, figurative speech, etc. to start with.
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,
I am ot sure about the ned in software engineering. But I amsure that all that underlined above are real things, becasue symbols belong to reality.
which cannot, by construction, distinguish the symbols from reality.
They treat them as real, they are tangible, materialized, reified, substatiated, etc. because they are representations in different forms and they do have a physical existence.
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.
Not quite what I have tried to suggest. I agree with you on the first line in this para though.
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.
FK A slight misunderstanding there about the physical nature of objects
Objects, apart from being out there after we are no more around - exist as a result of our mental operations, including abstraction, isolation, formalisation,interpretation, concretisation, specification to name a few essential and easy ones.
Now this sort of corespondence on forums and/or by email is a good example of why we have problems in harmonizing our ideas and knowledge. But I hate to elaborate on points that I cannot be sure of whether they are common knowledge or farout propositions.
TTFN (Ta ta for now)
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
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.