ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:06:41 -0000
Message-id: <50d1d804.4a63b40a.36c7.ffff9d58@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Pat,    (01)

MW: Well yes you can use that definition instead, but...    (02)

> > As I understand it, the issue can be seen as what series of
> > architectural choices one makes.
> >
> > There is a distinction going back to Aristotle between things that
> can
> > have members and things that cannot (phrase this in the way that
> suits
> > you - instances, predicables, etc.).
> > If you choose to make that distinction, then you may then want to
> > tighten up what kind of things cannot have members, and argue that
> > these must all be concrete (a kind of abstract object nominalism) -
> another choice.
> > If you make this second choice, you can resolve Pat's point about
> > numbers (at least, natural numbers) with some neo-Fregean approach.
> > Or, maybe a structuralist approach such as Shapiro's.
> > If you have made these two choices then a mental shorthand for the
> > distinction might be that it rests upon a concrete-abstract
> > distinction - but (architecturally) this is a much weaker and murkier
> > distinction to base things on, so not such a solid foundation.
> 
> My objection is to the very idea that these questions are in any sense
> "foundational". They are indeed obscure, hard to decide, and rest upon
> very fragile intuitions. But they are not foundational in the sense
> that anything important rests upon them or depends on getting them
> right. They are, in fact, almost completely irrelevant to any matter of
> concern to practical ontology design,     (03)

MW: This is where I part company with you. In the late '80s when I was
working for Shell we found that the same systems were being redeveloped time
and again, and that these systems were not reusable by others, doing the
same thing in other parts of Shell. The cost of this was estimated to run to
$100 millions per annum. The reason for this lack of reusability was
essentially that the systems had different ontologies, and these differences
encompassed both different world views (as Chris has been setting out) and
different applicable constraints within even a single world view.    (04)

MW: If you are going to overcome this problem you have to come to a common
world view, and have development standards that mean that inappropriate
constraints are not included in a system. A lot of my time since has been
spent trying to identify how far you can get towards that goal, whilst
obviously still allowing things that are valid to be represented.    (05)

MW: So if by "practical" you mean something that adds value in a business
context, I  will argue quite strongly that developing ontologies so that
they are reusable and extensible is key, and that to do so required
attention to making sure you use what Chris calls a common foundation.    (06)

MW: Now for sure you can manage if there are just 2 or 3 different
foundations, but not when there are hundreds.    (07)

Regards    (08)

Matthew West                            
Information  Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (09)

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.    (010)




> and can (and should) be ignored,
> unless one has far too much time to waste. It is not an architectural
> decision at all: more like a decision about what color smoke to blow up
> the chimney.
> 
> Here is one way to decide the matter: anything that can be described or
> referred to is, ipso facto, an individual. And of things that cannot be
> described or named, we must be silent.    (011)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (012)

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