Chris,
I extracted and responded to some of your key points about intangibles. (01)
[cp] This seems to be a statement that one *cannot* treat intangibles such as
contracts in the way I have described - that one has no choice but to accept
that they are intangibles. However, this kind of 'process' ontology is
commonplace - indeed mainstream in many Anglophone philosophy departments. I
think you need to present arguments as to why this kind of manoeuvre is
impossible (and I wish you luck), rather than just stating it is the case.
[cbc] I can see treating intangibles as processes as long as the process is
inclusive of the full life-cycle and effect of the intangible. In this case
the agreement is a process and that agreement has lasting impact in the
involved parties lasting until the agreement is satisfied or terminated.
However this is just as abstract as treating the agreement as an ongoing
obligation. What I don't think works is trying to pin all such intangibles to
some physical object, such as the paper they are written on. (02)
[cp] Have you ever seen an (ocean) wave or a (snow) avalanche or rain falling?
These are classical examples of processes. The use of the term 'tangible' might
be misleading as it implies touch - a better term of art is 'concrete' implying
spatial and temporal extension. It might be less 'subjective' to move away from
questions about 'seeing' to looking at spatial and temporal extensions.
[cbc] I have seen these things hand inferred the existence of some process that
caused them, I didn't see the process. I have also seen a person getting a
traffic ticket and inferred the existence of an (intangible) law that was
broken. I don't see a lot of difference. (03)
[cp] But I was asking for an explanation how something intangible (more
accurately, 'abstract') could have these tangible (more accurately,
'concrete') effects. As I understand it, there is no scientific evidence of
intangible/abstract things having a causal effect on tangible/concrete things.
[Note the contract is not intangible in the same sense that one might want to
classify gases or magnetic fields as intangible, because we cannot feel them.
With different sensory apparatus, we could sense gases, etc. I'd be interested
in the kind of sensory equipment that could see contracts.]
[cbc] How do intangibles has tangible effect? Not sure I know, I suspect it
has something to do with behavior. However the effect is as apparent as
gravity. If I were to represent a contract as the signed piece of paper, how
would this piece of paper in a filing cabinet have impact on physical objects
in a different space and time? This seems at least as magical. (04)
[cp] How often have you had disagreements when modelling? This seems to be the
most common feature of any modelling exercise. Anything that reduces
disagreement (in a healthy way) must be good.
For me the fact is most of the time people do not agree at all. I have been in
modelling sessions where people spent days trying to agree what a system was -
and that is at least sometimes tangible. The only way we approached some kind
of agreement was by focussing on concrete examples of systems.
[cbc] No, everyone always agrees with my models completely : ) In reality,
there are always differing points of view - one of the values of modeling is
making these visible. One such long and unresolved problem was in a DM2
session using (an interpretation of) BORO where it got all wrapped around the
axel trying to represent some simple SOA concepts such as a service contract.
The attempt to pin this to something in space/time made an understandable
concept troublesome. So any methodology can run into problems - perhaps if you
were their it would have gone better, but any methodology works better with the
masters present. (05)
In summary, a methodology that makes the physical explicit is fine, these are
the anchors for the intangibles. But I contend that to model the situations we
have today, in human affairs, the intangible are just as real as rocks. (06)
-Cory (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:27 PM
To: Cory Casanave
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy (08)
Hi Cory, (09)
I forgot to hit reply *all* - and so did not include the forum - maybe we
should post this back to the forum. (010)
I think we are arguing at different levels. (011)
My point is architectural, if you will.
When deciding on one's ontology one can choose whether to include intangibles
or not. (You seem to be arguing this choice does not exist.) (012)
However, if one does choose to include intangibles, there is - as I said before
- a problem *in principle* of explaining how one can know something one cannot
perceive in any way at all. (013)
Further comments below. (014)
Chris (015)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 08 July 2011 23:08
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>
> Chris,
> That something may be difficult or have problems does not make it go away.
> See [cbc] Below.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 4:50 PM
> To: Cory Casanave
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>
> Hi Cory,
>
> > IMHO Trying to find spatial/temporal foundations for all concepts
> > confuses the categorizations.
>
> [cp] In what way? Have you an example?
>
> [cbc] The contract example seems sufficient. (016)
[cp] As I offered what seemed to me a simple explanation of what one is without
invoking an intangibles, I cannot see how this is a good example of confusing
the categorisations. A little explanation may clear things up. (017)
>
> [cp] I think the argument goes the other way.
> If you elect to have intangible/abstract objects, there is the old
> problem
of
> how you explain how we know about them (is there some special kind of
> perception) and how they can affect anything (telekinesis?).
>
>
> [cbc] That it may be difficult of have problems does not make it go away.
> How we know about intangibles is indirect, by being involved with them
> - that involvement implies the process but the involvement is not the thing. (018)
[cp] Your argument seems to be that there are intangibles so we have to accept
them.
My point is that we have a choice between explaining these as intangibles or as
concrete - and am asking about the pros and cons. (019)
> Being involved in creating a contract does not make the process the
contract
> any more than being involved in creating a painting makes the process
> the painting. We also know it exists based on the evidence of it - be
> it
written,
> in human memory or digital memory. But, that evidence is not the
> thing either. (020)
[cp] This seems to be a statement that one *cannot* treat intangibles such as
contracts in the way I have described - that one has no choice but to accept
that they are intangibles. However, this kind of 'process' ontology is
commonplace - indeed mainstream in many Anglophone philosophy departments. I
think you need to present arguments as to why this kind of manoeuvre is
impossible (and I wish you luck), rather than just stating it is the case. (021)
>
> However, I am curious how you "see" a process or how this is more
> real, I have never seen one - only evidence that they have happened.
> Are you sure a process is tangible?
> (022)
Have you ever seen an (ocean) wave or a (snow) avalanche or rain falling?
These are classical examples of processes.
The use of the term 'tangible' might be misleading as it implies touch - a
better term of art is 'concrete' implying spatial and temporal extension.
It might be less 'subjective' to move away from questions about 'seeing' to
looking at spatial and temporal extensions. (023)
> What you think of as intangible, the contract, may have real and
> tangible impact on the tangible me. (024)
[cp] But I was asking for an explanation how something intangible (more
accurately, 'abstract') could have these tangible (more accurately,
'concrete') effects. As I understand it, there is no scientific evidence of
intangible/abstract things having a causal effect on tangible/concrete things.
[Note the contract is not intangible in the same sense that one might want to
classify gases or magnetic fields as intangible, because we cannot feel them.
With different sensory apparatus, we could sense gases, etc. I'd be interested
in the kind of sensory equipment that could see contracts.] (025)
This is sufficient evidence for me that something
> exists. The same is true of a process.
>
> [cp] And, even if you cannot do this, how do you secure agreement
> about what they are - what kind of arguments do you appeal to.
> You or I can stipulate rules for when they exist, but why should
> anyone agree with either of us?
>
> [cbc] We agree for our own reasons, I don't see this as relevant to
> being
able
> to communicate or reason about intangible things. The fact is we DO
> agree,
I
> assume we do so because agreement causes positive results, perhaps it
> helps us with a pretty woman.
> (026)
[cp] How often have you had disagreements when modelling? This seems to be the
most common feature of any modelling exercise. Anything that reduces
disagreement (in a healthy way) must be good.
For me the fact is most of the time people do not agree at all. I have been in
modelling sessions where people spent days trying to agree what a system was -
and that is at least sometimes tangible. The only way we approached some kind
of agreement was by focussing on concrete examples of systems. (027)
>
> Analysis is much easier if things are concrete - not to say that it
> always
easy
> to work out in what way they are.
>
> [cbc] Agreed - concrete things are much easier to analyze (not simple,
> but easier). So then should we dismiss the intangible for being hard?
>
> I would also agree that in terms of methodology it is important to
identify
> processes and concrete things related to the intangible so as to
> better understand the intangible - but I would use these as part of
> the
description
> of the intangible, not to deny it exists.
>
>
> -Cory
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 08 July 2011 21:35
> > To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >
> > Chris,
> > Re: So, for example, if you destroy the paper, does the law say you
> > have destroyed the contract?
> > No (personal experience - Hurricane Andrew) The paper is evidence
> > (and a
> > record) of the contract, an agreement between parties. Other
> > evidence may be binding.
> > IMHO Trying to find spatial/temporal foundations for all concepts
> > confuses the categorizations.
> >
> > John,
> > In relation to your overall causing of trouble - what is the
> > consequence
> of
> > this conclusion? In particular how does it impact our ability to
> understand
> > or relate information and/or the world?
> >
> > If I were to have a category "Pretty Woman", it seems clear that the
> > set described by this category is subjective (for both the term
> > "pretty" and "Woman"). Yet, it is a common category used every day.
> > What can we say about this category of categories Vs those that can
> > be
> quantified?
> >
> > -Cory
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
> > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:02 PM
> > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Is the paper in the vault the contract - or the record of the contract?
> > So, for example, if you destroy the paper, does the law say you have
> > destroyed the contract?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:ontolog-forum- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike
> > > Bennett
> > > Sent: 07 July 2011 17:37
> > > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> > >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > If you don't think contracts are real, try breaking one :)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > _
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > 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
> > (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
|