ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of on

To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:12:55 -0700
Message-id: <C0E5905CAE464DC48772437E08FA8CF8@Gateway>

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

 


_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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