Hi Cory, (01)
Thanks for resubmitting. (02)
As I said in the off-line mail:
"I think we are arguing at different levels." (03)
My point is architectural, if you will.
When deciding on the architecture for one's ontology one can choose whether
to include intangibles or not.
Then one needs to motivate this choice.
In the case of intangibles/abstract object, the classical hurdle is
explaining *in principle* how one can know something one cannot perceive in
any way at all. And the practical problem of how one can align different
people's views, without perception's aid. (04)
Comments below. (05)
Regards,
Chris (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: 09 July 2011 21:32
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: [ontolog-forum] (ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are
> fuzzy)
>
>
> Chris,
> I extracted and responded to some of your key points about intangibles.
>
> [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. (07)
[cp] It depends upon what one is referring to. There is, of course (as I
noted in another email) the full life cycle but there is also the execution
of the contract/promise, which is a component of the life cycle.
BTW I hope it is clear that I am not suggesting that all intangibles are
processes - the case we are discussing is agreements. (08)
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. (09)
[cp] Technically, 'abstract' is typically define as have *no* spatial or
temporal extent. In this sense, the process is most definitely not abstract.
What sense of 'abstract' did you intend here? (010)
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. (011)
[cp] Of course, trying to pin everything on the paper record is not a good
strategy - and this is not what is being suggested.
However, "trying to pin all such intangibles to some physical object" or
more exactly, deciding whether to work with tangibles rather than
intangibles is exactly the architectural choice one is faced with - and if
the choice is made to work with tangibles, there are standard ways to
proceed (i.e. in implementing the architectural choice). (012)
>
>
> [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. (013)
[cp] As a matter of curiosity, what type of thing did you see? (014)
[cp] As I said above, " It might be less 'subjective' to move away from
questions about 'seeing' to looking at spatial and temporal extensions." I
presume you accept that the 'processes' have spatial and temporal extent. I
may simplify things to use this as the criterion going forward. (015)
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.
> (016)
[cp] I'm afraid I do not see the analogy here. (017)
> [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. (018)
[cp] Just to make sure we are on the same page, I am asking how something
abstract (or a-spatial) can cause something spatial (or spatiotemporal) to
change. I am looking for an explanation along the lines of how one billiard
ball might hit another and cause it to move.
Is the idea that a contract/agreement/obligation somehow exerts some
(electro-magnetic?) force on people that causes their behaviour? I am at a
loss to know what form this explanation might take. If you have some more
detail that would be useful. (019)
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. (020)
[cp] The story has a few more actors. Firstly, I think the focus on the
paper is misplaced - but leaving that aside for now. One can show a simple
causal chain backwards from (say) the delivery of goods to the contract. The
delivery note is given to the guy in the warehouse, who finds the goods and
passes them onto the guy with the delivery van, etc. What is so magical
about this? If one was there at the time, one could see these things
happening. (021)
>
> [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. (022)
[cp] And making the underlying assumptions that lead to these differing
views visible - which is my concern here. (023)
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. (024)
[cp] Thanks for the compliment. And I accept the point that practically one
needs some familiarity with an approach to be able to deploy it - and
service contracts are a difficult topic.
BTW there is an light weight extensional view of services here
http://www.borosolutions.co.uk/research/content/files/IEA%20-%202011%20-%20W
hat%20is%20a%20service.pdf/view?searchterm=service# and here
http://www.borosolutions.co.uk/research/content/files/IEA%20-%202011%20-%20W
hat%20is%20a%20Service%20-%20MoD%20Service%20Analysis%20Report.pdf/view?sear
chterm=service# - the DM2 guys have a copy the report. All too late for your
meeting. (025)
[cp] The point I want to make here is not partisan. It is that there is an
architectural aspect to building the framework for an ontology - and that
one needs to consider practical issues when doing so. In so far as I am
being partisan it is to try and make sure that some of the 'cons' of
adopting an 'intangible' architecture are understood - so they are factored
in when making the choice of a framework. (026)
>
> In summary, a methodology that makes the physical explicit is fine, these
are
> the anchors for the intangibles. (027)
[cp] One reading of this is that you are saying it is impossible to choose,
at the architectural level, to work with an ontology that avoids
intangibles. Am I misreading you? If so, what makes this so impossible? As I
mentioned " this kind of 'process' ontology is commonplace - indeed
mainstream in many Anglophone philosophy departments." Is it fatally flawed
in some way? (028)
But I contend that to model the situations
> we have today, in human affairs, the intangible are just as real as rocks. (029)
[cp] But real in a different way - as tangibles and intangibles seem to
exist in different ways? (030)
>
> -Cory
>
> -----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
>
> Hi Cory,
>
> I forgot to hit reply *all* - and so did not include the forum - maybe we
> should post this back to the forum.
>
> I think we are arguing at different levels.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> Further comments below.
>
> Chris
>
> > -----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.
>
> [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.
>
> >
> > [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.
>
> [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.
>
> > 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.
>
> [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.
>
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> 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.
>
> > What you think of as intangible, the contract, may have real and
> > tangible impact on the tangible me.
>
> [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.]
>
> 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.
> >
>
> [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.
>
> >
> > 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
> > >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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
> (031)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (032)
|