-1. (01)
Chris, (02)
The question is whether SOA or any other modeling effort has conformance
to the dictates of formal logic as a requirement? (03)
If not, and the modeling effort meets the needs of its community, I
don't see a problem. (04)
Or to put it differently, there isn't some abstract requirement that all
modeling projects conform to formal logic. Some will, some won't, most
will fall somewhere in between. (05)
Hope you are having a great holiday season! (06)
Patrick (07)
On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 00:07 +0000, Chris Partridge wrote:
> +1
>
> Though of course one can argue about the details of the ontological
> curriculum.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
> > Sent: 23 December 2010 19:36
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
> > Ontology Technical Standard
> >
> > On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Research wrote:
> > > Going back to the top of this thread for a moment:
> > > - Todd states that the SOA Ontology from the Open Group "is rubbish
> > > for many reasons" but that "there is some value in this work".
> > > - I asked for some justification to the initial statement.
> > > - a whole series of comments are posted regarding modelling errors and
> > > shortcomings...
> > > On the thread, we have followed a typical Ontolog Forum pattern of
> > > spiralling away from the initial point and exploring fine modelling
> > > points - all good in its own way, and a reflection of the breadth of
> > > opinion and ideas of the group, which is great.
> >
> > Actually, *my* point wasn't really to comment on a modeling error or
> > explore fine modeling points, although I probably obscured the point by
> > being explicit about the details. My actual point was that large, well-
> > publicized and (in some cases) well-funded ontologies are being
> constructed
> > by folks who are still confused about the most elementary points of logic
> > and knowledge representation -- notably, in this case, the difference
> > between instance and subclass, a confusion the KR community straightened
> > out almost as soon as it cropped up over 35 years ago. For someone tasked
> > with constructing an ontology to be confused about it in this day and age
> is
> > like an engineer tasked with building a bridge to be confused about, say,
> the
> > difference between force and torque.
> >
> > I think there is still a pretty pervasive idea (despite regular rejoinders
> from
> > the likes of John Sowa, Michael Grüninger, Pat Hayes, Leo Obrst, etc) that
> > building quality ontologies doesn't require any sort of special technical
> > training, just a clear head, a bit of common sense, and a copy of Protege
> (an
> > excellent and useful tool, let me hasten to add). To the contrary, at a
> > minimum, a competent, well-educated ontological engineer must have a
> > mastery of first-order logic and related systems like modal logic (of
> which
> > description logic can be considered a variety) as well as a deep
> familiarity
> > with the history of knowledge representation and KR systems. Broad
> > knowledge of the history of philosophy as well as contemporary metaphysics
> > and philosophy of language would not only sharpen analytical skills and
> > provide a rich source of ontological exploration to draw upon, but would
> > also prevent ontological engineers from wasting time reinventing the wheel
> > (typically with an inferior design).
> >
> > Until ontological engineers, like engineers of every other other stripe,
> can be
> > assumed to have a well-defined baseline of knowledge and a basic technical
> > skills, an endless repetition of elementary modeling errors and,
> > consequently, a stream of (at best) unreliable and (at worst) incoherent
> > ontologies are to be expected, and skepticism about the usefulness of
> > ontologies will (justifiably) persist. We trust every new bridge that is
> built to
> > hold us up (in part) because of the knowledge and skill of the engineers
> who
> > designed it; sound bridges that perform their function reliably are the
> norm,
> > not the exception. Why should it be any different for ontologies?
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|