Try as I may, I seem to fail to elicit the original point and its cogency. (01)
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/14/2011 01:55 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>> But a top-down, monolithic, detailed, universal ontology of everything (02)
by the time it has become detailed and, also, an ontology of
everything, does it still make sense to call it top-down? What exactly
is being referred to here? (03)
>> is not only impossible to achieve, (04)
The nature of the alleged impossibility is unclear and the various
characteristics do not seem particularly well on a par as prospective
causes. (05)
>> it would be a disaster, if anybody
>> tried to enforce it on everything. (06)
Why? (07)
You will excuse the non-native speaker if my command of English is not
sufficient to see through the apparent paradox that something
allegedly impossible to achieve may also lead to disaster when acted
on. So, is the warning here that somebody will lose their mind in the
raving lunacy of illusory omniscience? (08)
What, precisely, is said here? (09)
>
> I could not agree more, this would be almost like a conceptualization
> oligarchy. The even more important point however is that it is
> impossible and we should stop doing it. (010)
This is a very pessimistic view on progress, in science, and human
matters in general. Granting the impossibility of the task for the
sake of the argument (as noted above, I am not entirely sure of what
the task at hands is), great things can be achieved when trying the
impossible. (011)
> Information communities (and
> even individuals) have their local conceptualizations of the physical
> world (012)
These are conceptualisations. It is a useful, if nothing else,
assumption that these conceptualisations are directed towards a common
reality. There is a useful, if nothing else, sense of ontology whereby
ontology is not conceptual modelling. Moreover, so goes the
disposition, conceptual modelling can interestingly benefit from
ontology in its `absolute', truth-mongering thrust. After all, these
conceptualisations exist, and Good Old Fashion Ontology has room for
them as well, absolutely... (013)
> and they have them for good reasons. (014)
I find this claim interesting. It is perhaps credible with some
qualifications, but it is unclear what these may be. (015)
best
pierre (016)
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
> --
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
> GeoVISTA Center, Department of Geography, 302 Walker Building
> Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
>
> Email: jano@xxxxxxx
> Webpage: http://www.personal.psu.edu/kuj13/
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|