Apologies for the previous empty reply...my mail agent got the better of
me. (01)
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 09:57 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: (02)
> In some ways the digital/semantic technologies are making this worse.
> Ontologies impose artificial identity conditions of their own, which
> can clash both with other ontologies and with human intuitions. For
> example, the widely popular provenance ontology
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ views every change as producing a
> new entity, so changing a tire on a car gives you a new car. In
> contrast, the BFO basic ontology (http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/), used in
> hundreds of bioinformatics applications, enforces a sharp, rigid
> distinction between continuants and occurrents (roughly, objects and
> processes) with completely different identity conditions across time.
> On the other hand, the 'oil and gas' (now generalized) ontology ISO
> 15926, widely used in industry, treats everything as what BFO would
> call an occcurrent. All of these are different and mutually
> incompatible basic assumptions about identity, but likely would not
> even be actively considered by human users (except some philosophers,
> maybe.) (03)
Would not then prudence suggest we consider alternative approaches that
might have a better chance of meeting human needs? (04)
These and other apparently insuperable difficulties discussed in this
forum all seem to arise from systems based on mathematical logic. Is it
possible our faith in mathematical logic as an ultimate aid to human
knowledge and reasoning is misplaced? (05)
Regards,
--Paul (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|