I share Ed's alarm (at least, this is how I interpret his comments) although I
have been aware of this confusion in the computer engineering community for
some time. (01)
There is a major misunderstanding about the very nature of a model or inquiry
related to existence and its properties (an ontology). As far as I can tell,
nothing that is discussed in this forum relates to any established definition
of "ontology" in either philosophy or science. (02)
Whatever it is, relying upon a dictionary definition is ridiculous.
Dictionaries define nothing, they are reports of usage - confused or not - and
they are obliged to report all of these, even if they are inconsistent
nonsense. So eventually even the broken definition now used in this forum will
eventually find its way into a dictionary. This will not endow it with any
merit, intellectual shame perhaps. (03)
Unattributed dictionary's are dangerous since they institutionalize bad ideas
and mistakes; including political points of view, bigotry's, bad science and
bad computer programming practice. (04)
Peirce would have pointed this out to you. I mention Peirce only because John
cited Charles Peirce earlier. Definition belongs to individuals and are
necessarily attributed to or deferred to them, not disembodied. (05)
By my definition: Existential status is awarded to that which derives from
primitive nature. A computer program exists only in the sense that you wrote it
down, so it gains existential status from you (assuming you in fact exist). Any
entity that you may feel such a schema references is another matter entirely.
The rest is computational mechanics. (06)
This, my friends, is why you need an epistemology: a general theory of
knowledge. It is by an epistemology, not an ontology, that you may reason about
the conceptual entities involved in programming and computer programs. (07)
So, again, I ask what epistemic model is being used? My guess: none at all. (08)
I might add, appealing to Charles Peirce's father, Benjamin Peirce:
"Mathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions." You might want
to look at that. ;-) (09)
Best regards,
Steven (010)
On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (011)
> John,
>
> You wrote:
>
>> ISO normally uses the OED, but I'll cut & paste definitions from the Free
>MW, which is available online.
>> Definition of 'ontology' from the Free MW:
>>> 1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
>>> 2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things
>that have existence
>>>
>> Definition #2 is the one we use in this forum. But we need to check
>> the meaning of 'theory':
>>
>>> 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
>>> 2 : abstract thought : speculation
>>>
>> Combining definition #2 of 'ontology' with definition #1 of 'theory':
>>
>>> a particular analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
>>> about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence
>>>
>
> If this were the definition we use in the Ontolog Forum, I would unsubscribe
>immediately.
>
>> To specialize this definition for computer applications, delete the
>> option "the nature of being" and add "in some domain of application":
>>
>>> a particular analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
>>> about the kinds of things that have existence in some domain of application
>>>
>
> So now we are not using the dictionary definition, and we are assigning a
>very different semantic interpretation to "kinds of things that have
>existence".
>
>> Note that neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster's nor the long tradition
>> in philosophy require theories to be stated in formal logic.
>>
>
> So, the idea that "computational ontology" is based on "formal logic" is not
>a part of your conceptualization of "computational ontologies". This is
>useful to know. It enables me to produce a useful email filter.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email:
> edbark@xxxxxxxx
>
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Systems Integration Division, Engineering Laboratory
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|