Re: [ontolog-forum] Intensional relation

[matthew lange <mclange@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why does it have to be
John: "Teaching ontology by burying the fundamental insights under
the trivial notation is pedagogical malpractice."
or
Leo: "The point of using mathematical (or logical) notation is to make your statement precise and unambiguous."

Cannot these perspectives be harmonized?:

Fundamental principles can be explained in plain language, with formalized notation provided for those trained in higher mathematics.

FWIW, I am a life scientist with several years of data/knowledge architecture experience. I cringe at the formalist notation--able to understand it with my old math books next to me--but view that largely as a waste of time if the concept is well explained. If authors only care about talking to other mathematicians/logicians then this notation is good. If they want to reach a larger audience who can leverage their teachings...

~mc
_________________________________________________________________
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)