I dont' understand this view. If classes are defined by the properties
they possess, can one not proceed along those lines? A Vocabulary is
composed of terms, A Glossary is composed of definitions, and so on.
On 2/15/2014 8:41 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Ed, Gary, David, Rich, and Ken,
>
> The following two excerpts, which I agree with, summarize the reasons
> why this thread could continue indefinitely:
>
> EJB
>> The problem with this whole exercise is that these terms have come
>> from different disciplines and have broader and narrower meanings
>> in certain communities. Put another way, we will not be able to
>> capture 'what (arbitrary) people mean by X'. The best we can do is
>> 'what WE agree to mean by X'.
> Yes. In Wittgenstein's terms, each discipline addresses a range of
> problems for which their ways of talking (language games) have proved
> to be useful.
>
> GBC
>> I don't think of this collection of ideas (Data Dictionary,Vocabulary,
>> Glossary, Dictionary, Data Model, Taxonomy, Grammar, Language, Ontology)
>> as natural types so there isn't a nature based definition or a descent
>> relation that leads to Ontology from the prior list.
> Yes. As LW would say, there are criss-crossing family resemblances
> among all those terms. Each discipline uses them in language games
> that could be defined for that discipline. But there are no necessary
> and sufficient conditions that could define all uses for all purposes.
>
> DE
>> If one doesn't know which systems, programs, logic, data structures
>> & rules are producing the data, how will one know when the data
>> suddenly changes?
> Good question. Neither Sherlock Holmes nor any competent scientist,
> engineer, physician, forensic investigator, intelligence analyst, etc,
> would accept data at face value without asking about the provenance,
> the methods of derivation, and the people who derived and verified it.
>
> RC
>> Adding ontologies to still the Babel of the silos could be the challenge
>> task for some prize or other, comparable to Turing's challenge...
> Computers create Babel much faster than people ever could. The best
> we can hope for is to make them keep audit trails that enable people
> to use more computers to untangle the mess.
>
> KL
>> When I am presented with what someone is calling an "ontology",
>> I often ask whether it is meant for representation or reasoning.
>> Often, the formalism of choice is UML...
>>
>> Where does this range of UML models fit? How can we make that
>> clear to the corresponding practitioners without turning them
>> into experts or berating them for not being experts.
> This gets us back to the issue of tools:
>
> JFS, with apologies to Kant,
>> Theory without tools is blind.
>> Tools without theory are meaningless.
> We need to develop both theories and tools that enable ordinary
> people to untangle the mess of data in ways they can understand
> and act upon.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (02)
|