Ed, (01)
Can you find any examples where what I said was wrong? A very precise
and detailed specification is always for a specific project. When you
design a bridge, that design holds for a single bridge for a single
location. If you design a car, you can manufacture thousands of
identical cars, but that design will not be true of any other model. (02)
EJB
> I just can't agree with the spirit of John's tag line: (03)
JFS
>> Therefore, both the laws of human science and the laws of human social
>> institutions have a narrow range of definiteness and a large area of
>> vagueness, uncertainty, and multiple exceptions. (04)
EJB
> But if that were true on the scale of projects in which we are typically
> engaged, it follows that "knowledge engineering" and "ontology development"
> are pointless exercises -- garbage in, garbage out. (05)
Not at all. It means precision for version 1.0, of which you make
thousands of copies. But you need a different specification for v. 1.1.
On update Tuesdays, millions of copies of Windows get a new version
with a specification that has changed at a large number of points. (06)
EJB
> A lot of us are engineers, and we are too ignorant to know when you
> are only talking philosophy. (07)
I was talking about engineering. Can you point to any project about
which anything I said was false? (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|