ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic ambiguity and startingwithdefiinit

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <781539.79588.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ferenc, Rich,

I agree that whether there is a physical form or a concept, the abstraction of an object uses the same format.   Depending on the object itself, it can be simple or complex. 

Both can change their form and behavior or functionality, one may be natural and other may be man made or simulated concept.  But still all that is stored as 2d info, but become 3d after instantiation with time stamp in traditional OO world..

Pavithra


--- On Tue, 9/21/10, FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic ambiguity and startingwithdefiinitions
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 12:58 PM

Rich,
You wrote:

I understand that philosophy tries to distinguish between those things (objects) that are real, and which “block the observer’s view”,

FK

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,

FK

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.  

FK

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)

Ferenc

 

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

 

Pavitra,

the definition of Objects the way Ferenc has defined looks good, however it is limited to things that have physical form and attributes. 

FK

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 :-)

Pavithra

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.

FK

I agree, but I am, not r an engineer.

Regards,

Ferenc 




_________________________________________________________________
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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----



_________________________________________________________________
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>