It is indeed well known that different models can be more useful for
different purposes. But I have not seen any analytical arguments to
extrapolate from that and then say that there can never be a neutral
ontology that can **describe** all the different models, and specify the
similarities and differences,. It strikes me as equivalent to saying that
there is no one human language that can describe all models. Yet we do
describe them in English, as well as in other human languages (sometimes
supplemented by graphical or mathematical notation). The basis for general
interoperability is to find and agree on that neutral ontology that does not
**assume** any of the contradictory models, but can **describe** conflicting
models. (01)
It is not clear from comments about "no single ontology" whether this is
intended to deny the possibility of a common ontology that can describe all
models, or whether it merely means that there are conflicting **models**
that are logically incompatible. The latter is clearly true, but doesn’t
mean that there is no common ontology that can **logically specify (describe
in logical terms)** what the models are intended to mean. Such ontologies
can, I believe, be extremely useful to support general interoperability, as
I have discussed at length previously. This is what I believe that an
ontology based on representations of conceptual primitives can accomplish. (02)
We create ontologies in part to avoid the ambiguity of human language, and
discussions in this forum sometimes suffer from that ambiguity. It might be
an instructive exercise if contentious assertions are formulated in FOL to
clarify the intended meanings, when it seems that human language is
insufficiently precise for the purpose. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 1:39 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day
>
> Yes, and its not just economists; I managed a simulation group way back
> when, and every project was designed to meet the simulation
> expectations of
> the customer. The whole purpose of a simulation is to prove or
> disprove a
> theory by use of the simulation. So if the simulation DOESN'T convince
> the
> customer that s/he was right all the time, it probably wasn't well
> implemented. If the simulation shows something different, then the
> customer
> is always disappointed and abandons the effort. So simulations lead to
> circular logic, not really proof of the hypothesis.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed - 0x1b,
> Inc.
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 12:22 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day
>
> Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:11 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Happy New Year, folks.
> >
> > To start the new year, I'd like to quote an economist, whose
> observation
> > is true of nearly every model or ontology on any subject whatever:
> >
> > "Models generally return results close to the assumptions
> > of the economists who write them."
> >
> > Source:
> >
> >
> http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970203423004576049913136
> 80191
> 4.html
> >
> > For an ontology that is designed for a specific purpose, the goal
> > of getting a result close to what one expected may be desirable.
> >
> > But when the goal is to support interoperability among a wide range
> > of systems that were designed for different purposes, it's unlikely
> > that there exists an ideal ontology that is equally good for all
> > of them. Therefore, any common ontology that can be used to share
> > data must be a compromise that is less than ideal for each of them.
> >
> > There are many implications of this observation. Instead of trying
> > to enumerate all of them in one note, I'd like to open this subject
> > for further discussion.
> >
> > John
> >
>
> Any Economic model arrayed about an equals sign is inevitably
> socialist. - design economist
> means and ends are unified in the tool.
>
> Happy New Year.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|