What we try to do is impossible, no? And so, let's just give up, eh? (02)
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Discussion re reasoning about Time and State with
>Dear Ed and Matthew,
>> There is no good model for all problems.
>That is the understatement of the year.
>I would add that even for a single project -- say designing
>an airplane, a house, or a computer -- there are a huge number
>of problems that require different models. And those models
>are *rarely, if ever* consistent with one another when you
>get down to the grubby details of each.
>> The important thing to take from this is not that it is too
>> difficult, but that you need to think about how time relates
>> to the requirements you are trying to meet, and make sure
>> you have a model that is fit for purpose. A particularly bad
>> approach is to start with a current state model and then try
>> to add change, history and time later.
>For any particular model, that's true. But note that even for
>designing a house (a typical one-family home), there are a large
>number of different models. All of them have to be consistent
>(to a good approximation) with the map drawn up by the surveyor
>and the blueprints drawn up by the architect.
>But all the subcontractors come with their own models (usually
>mental): plumbers, electricians, carpenters, landscapers,
>excavators, etc. Try discussing identity conditions with them.
>A blank stare is preferable to some remarks they might make.
>Now multiply those issues by thousands, if you're trying to
>design a Boeing 787 or Airbus 380. It's no wonder that those
>projects weren't finished on time and within budget.
>By the way, I attended a talk last week about data mining in
>bioinformatics. The speaker said that he talked with many of
>the physicians at a large, modern hospital. None of them had
>heard anything about ontology or the related terms that we
>kick around on this list.
>If they happen to choose a formally defined term from a menu,
>what is the likelihood that their intended use is consistent
>with the formal definition?
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>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/
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 (05)