Dear Doug,
You and I wrote:
RC:> One way to view context is as a collection of properties
and relations
> about a situation. In that view, context is possibly
physical, and
> possibly conceptual, but not necessarily either.
DF:>I meant that a context is a conceptual construct. It
seems that you are
referring to the physical definition of the context, which i
referred to
in the next sentence.
RC:> For example, if I am recording objects and their properties
in a database, > then a query
DF:>A query is a conceptual object and has a conceptual
structure. If the
query is seen as merely a string of 1s and 0s, it can not be used
until
it is interpreted to have some meaning by mapping it to some
conceptual
structure.
The word “context” is widely used in
computer science to mean all the information required to perform some
function(s). For example, the Android Developer’s Guide has this
web page describing how contexts are referenced by “Toasts”, where
a toast is pretty much a modal window that pops up to give the user some info:
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/notifiers/toasts.html
I am curious; why do you feel that a context is
conceptual any more than some other glob of memory which, as you say, has to be
interpreted to be useful?
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:10 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis,
semantics and the research program of ontologies
On Sun, March 25, 2012 13:52, Rich
Cooper wrote:
> doug foxvog wrote:
>> Or course, what can be physically measured
depends upon context. In
>> various contexts, things beyond a certain
(temporal or linear) scale would
>> be out of context and not part of that
context's physical reality. And,
>> of course, context is a conceptual, not
physical concept -- although it
>> may be given a physical definition.
> One way to view context is as a collection of
properties and relations
> about a situation. In that view, context is
possibly physical, and
> possibly conceptual, but not necessarily either.
I meant that a context is a conceptual
construct. It seems that you are
referring to the physical definition of the context,
which i referred to
in the next sentence.
> For example, if I am recording objects and their
properties in a database,
> then a query
A query is a conceptual object and has a conceptual
structure. If the
query is seen as merely a string of 1s and 0s, it can
not be used until
it is interpreted to have some meaning by mapping it
to some conceptual
structure.
> which returns a situation description may have
either
> conceptual structure (if they are MY concepts
that were recorded) or
> physical structure (if the returned values are
solely physical SENSOR
> measurements).
Sure. The conceptual context may include in its
physical definition a
conceptually selected time frame and a conceptually
selected set of
sensors and their readings. The individual
readings may be more than
merely binary values, but given a conceptual meaning,
for example,
temperature in degrees Kelvin, pressure in Pascals,
time in milliseconds
offset from T0, etc.
> In actual practice, a context can mix both
physical and subjective
> ('conceptual' if you prefer) estimates of
reality, and usually does in
> most practical database applications.
I do not use 'conceptual' to mean 'subjective'.
I think that this is really the key to the discussion.
I define 'conceptual' as something that is a construct
of one or more minds.
> So, IMHO, situations are every bit as slippery
and subjective as concepts.
> Situations are just more articulated since
they usually comprise both
> concepts and sensor readings.
First, i was not considering contexts to be
situations. They are quite
different things.
Having said that, i agree that situations are slippery
concepts. Their
boundaries are subjective. The temporal and
spatial limits of a storm
are defined arbitrarily. What situations and
events count as subevents
or sub-situations of a war? How are breaks in
thought considered when
examining the situation of my responding to this
email?
-- doug
> -Rich
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> ...
_________________________________________________________________
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