On Mon, February 14, 2011 10:06, Pierre Grenon said:
> Try as I may, I seem to fail to elicit the original point and its cogency.
>
> 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 (01)
> 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? (02)
This appears to be a Cyc-like ontology without microtheories. Everything
is in one ontology without contextual considerations. (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.
>
>>> it would be a disaster, if anybody
>>> tried to enforce it on everything. (05)
> Why? (06)
The enforcement is the problem, since in specific contexts, the
hierarchy would change. (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. (08)
It is the enforcement that would lead to disaster, not the creation of
an allegedly universal top-down ontology of everything. (09)
> So, is the warning here that somebody will lose their mind in the
> raving lunacy of illusory omniscience?
>
> What, precisely, is said here? (010)
See above. (011)
>> 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. (012)
> 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. (013)
Great things can be achieved in the construction of ontologies. But
the ignoring of contexts precludes, imho, other great things. (014)
>> Information communities (and
>> even individuals) have their local conceptualizations of the physical
>> world (015)
> These are conceptualisations. It is a useful, if nothing else,
> assumption that these conceptualisations are directed towards a common
> reality. (016)
The various conceptualizations may be directed towards different
contexts, and thus different realities. (017)
> 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... (018)
Sure. But it need not bring them into the same context. (019)
>> and they have them for good reasons.
>
> I find this claim interesting. It is perhaps credible with some
> qualifications, but it is unclear what these may be. (020)
An atom may usefully be considered indivisible in one context, but not
another. Same with a neutron. A person might be a 4D entity in one
context, but in another context is a 3D+1 entity. Etc. (021)
-- doug foxvog (022)
> best
> pierre
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (023)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (024)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|