On Wed, February 20, 2013 01:27, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
>...
> 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. (01)
Correct. This forum is not dedicated to the meaning of the word "ontology"
in philosophy. It is dedicated to the computer science meaning of the
word as it is used to describe sets of logical terms (representing types of
things, instances of those types, and relations among them) along with
permissible logical operations using them. Such sets of terms (and the
terms individually) are intended to represent actual things in the real
(or a conceptual) world, and thus the ontologies are deemed to be
semantic, and the use of them is deemed to be semantic processing
or "reasoning". This forum does not require all definitions to be based
on "first principles" (02)
> ... 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. (03)
The computer science meaning of the term "ontology" *does* include
a theory of how reasoning can be performed using its components. (04)
Neither do computer ontologies require a definition of knowledge
(which philosophers consider to be a subset of justified true belief),
nor do they require that statements included in the ontology must
be true in the "real world". They require reasoning to be consistent
and to produce logical results in cases of hypothetical reasoning,
simulations, role-playing games, as well as when the information being
reasoned about is taken to be true. (05)
Reasoning on partially faulty data, can, using computer ontologies
demonstrate that a pair/set of statements are inconsistent. However,
without computer access to "the ground truth", such reasoning can not
be expected to determine which statement(s) are necessarily false. A
ranking of the truth values of the various statements, if included in the
knowledge base, can be used to suggest which statement is more likely
to be false. (06)
An ontological system can model reasoning about belief, chains
of justification, knowing, knowing about knowing, etc. Such systems
can solve dining philosopher problems. However, most use of computer
ontologies need not delve into such issues. (07)
> So, again, I ask what epistemic model is being used? My guess: none at
> all. (08)
At the most basic level, the model is that of a hypothetical world:
the statements are taken to be true for the purposes of reasoning
without a need for the system being aware of any grounding of the truth
of the statements. Conclusions can be made by formal logic within
the hypothetical world. A detected contradiction proves that at least
one of the statements involved in the shortest proof of the contradiction
is false. (09)
-- doug foxvog (010)
> 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. ;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Steven
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (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)
|