Agreed, with Chris and John both. (01)
I think that means we all have the same view now of the architecture of some
ontology, though we certainly disagree among ourselves in SOME ways about
the refinements of that description. (02)
Now would be a good time to nudge the refinement process into discovery of
our OTO. (03)
I mentioned the learning curve - that happens because many programmers, with
many views, create a mosaic of rough fitting tiles. Procedures written by A
don't match B's view, so the iteration of that refinement gets worked out by
the application of knowledge - in this case both A and B working together -
to make refinement of the Type structures until all the properties and
methods share a common consensus in operational sufficiency, that is
workable for known situations anticipated by A and B. (04)
An ontology could model that application of knowledge, refining the Type
structure until both parties agree sufficiently. But that refinement
process explodes in work with program complexity growing only linearly. It
still requires the inputs of A and B, both of which have some part to patch
into the emerging program mosaic. If only A and B had been able to do the
task without learning in the first place - had a copy to work from -, then
the process could have been automated. But they didn't, because NOBODY has
ever built a system quite exactly like this System A and B built. If they
had, it would be wasted duplication to rediscover the same consensus view
for the remainder of the project. (05)
The fact that the refinement process has been computer assisted, but not
fully automated yet, is the reason that a 4D model is inappropriate to
accurately model the refinement process. It requires that the System learn
how to help the subject matter expert learn about subsystem views that were
used in the past, how well they functioned, and what were their
deficiencies, ... and then reinterpret the past into the present design of
the future System. (06)
-Rich (07)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
John F. Sowa wrote (09)
I agree with that. (010)
I also see no problem about quantifying over fictional and
mythological places and beings. You just create a model
of them (use set theory, if you like), specify how they
interact, link them to your virtual reality software,
and quantify over them as you please. (011)
All such things can be handled in the same way that
computer scientists quantify over data structures. (012)
There is no difference in principle between letting
quantifiers range over the planned items in a bridge
that has not yet been built or the entities in some
hypothetical world or situation. (013)
John (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|