ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:37:27 +0100
Message-id: <4E15E0C7.7010708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David,    (01)

There is no problem describing financial products ontologically. 
Calipers are not a requirement. All financial products are 
contracts, and contracts are a real thing regardless of whether 
they consist of paper in a vault (as a few still do) or are 
maintained electronically.    (02)

If you don't think contracts are real, try breaking one :)    (03)

The dimensions along which they are defined are, as you rightly 
suggest, where it gets interesting. One look at the ISO 10962 
Classification of Financial Instruments standard will show what a 
challenge it is to try and articificially shoe-horn the whole lot 
into one dimension - you simply can't.    (04)

Mike    (05)

On 07/07/2011 16:21, David Eddy wrote:
> John -
>
> On 2011-07-06, at 12:45 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> And a warning:  Unless you can find an immutable law of nature
>> that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
>> foundation for a "standard ontology".
> Agreed.
>
> My view of (imagined) reality has been largely financial services
> (e.g. mutual funds, brokerage, banking,&  various forms of
> insurance).  In my career, I have only worked directly for a single
> firm that actually made a physical product (junk jewelry)...
> otherwise everything has been paper pushing, describing various
> facets of non-dimensional products.
>
> Quite naturally, since these industries are all conjured out of thin
> air, there are no natural laws to impose organizational discipline.
>
>   From what I've seen, "organization" is largely the last minute panic
> to make the next deadline.  Does tend to leave a chaotic residue
> which only gets worse over time.
>
>
> Since this ontology interest has arisen, it has been rattling around
> in the back of my mind if ontologies can be applied to things like
> financial "products."
>
>
> Personally I vacillate between describing financial "products" as
> either "non-dimensional" or "N-dimensional."  In any case these
> products are stuff that cannot be put on a scale&  weighted or have a
> caliper applied to them.  It's just information which as far as I
> know we have no idea how to measure other than silly things like
> "lines of code."
>
> ___________________
> David Eddy
> deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>    (06)


-- 
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068    (07)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>