ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:22:30 -0500
Message-id: <50D205E6.2020600@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 12/19/2012 3:56 AM, Chris Partridge wrote:
> I know you [Pat] have an irrational aversion to these topics.    (01)

That remark is uncalled for.  Pat has a very strong understanding
of the issues and requirements for a good design.  But he has even
less patience than I have for endless quibbling over words.    (02)

> My and, I'm guessing, Matthew's experience is that these kinds of
> structures are a useful practical device when dealing with large systems.    (03)

Structure is *extremely* important.  Pat and I were not complaining
about any proposed structures.  We were complaining about endless
debates about common English words that are overloaded with confusing
and conflicting definitions.    (04)

My solution is simple:  whenever a word creates more confusion than
enlightenment, delete it.  If you can't state a precise definition
in terms of the logic used to specify the ontology, then the word
is too vague and misleading for ontology design and documentation.    (05)

> If you [Pat] are suggesting that the terms we are using "cannot be
> described or named" maybe you should re-read the literature.    (06)

Pat not only knows the literature, he has been making important
contributions to it for over 40 years.  The fact that this thread
has been going around in circles for dozens of notes without reaching
a precise definition of the word 'individual' implies that the word
is more confusing than informative.    (07)

Simple solution:  If knowledgeable people in the field cannot agree
on a definition for a word, then don't use it.    (08)

By the way, I learned that lesson many years ago in a project
at IBM.  We had endless arguments about the word 'name'.
Our solution was to forbid any use of that word.    (09)

When we got rid of the word, we quickly discovered that we all
had nearly identical intuitions about the *structure* of the
architecture.  The only arguments were about one confusing word.    (010)

John    (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>