To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sun, 14 Dec 2014 15:56:04 -0500 |
Message-id: | <CALuUwtALpXKscH9nSHu=X7spQu6R4cfFP8NjwW4LDzJpvGse9A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
I wish words failed me, too. But my outrage needs some words to go with it. I am **most** concerned not with how egregiously AWFUL this is, but what it means about the engineering culture in which this could occur. 2. Talk (or code) first, learn (or reuse) never. This subject, as we here all love to yammer on about, has a history more than 2000 years old, about which lots has been learned. So, the modern day experts on how to effectively stipulate what an ontology will mean by the term 'thing', as well as how to effectively construct defintions, have a great deal of help from the shoulders on which they stand. This so-called standard, on the other hand, is like a nightmare of jumbled words that might have popped up in the 2000 years of incremental improvement in our understanding of what is useful to cast as a 'thing', and when. Although unnecessary, I can't help but repeat Pat's quote from the standard and attack a few of its more obvious failings. Here is what these people sponsored by the OMG and propose as a standard for the Financial Industry: "A Thing is defined as the set of individuals which are defined according the facts (properties) given for that kind of thing. " Well, in general, circular definitions are undesireable. So, they have the concept of individual, as a primitive from which Thing is constructed. So, presumably, individuals are NOT things. Second, they do not distinquish between facts and properties, suggesting that they will have a really hard time when it comes to dealing with the different meta types in the ontology. The capstone of the absurdity, though, is that in defining thing, they rely on, as part of the definition of thing, the concept of 'KIND of thing.' How are we to know what a kind of thing is, before we know what a thing is? Looking at this some more though, alot of the nonsense in the official semantics for the Unified Modelling Language seems to be embedded here, in that they seem to be making the same fallacy, that individuals and types are so entirely different in nature that we can't even talk about them in the same language. Of course, the so-called 'semantics' of UML itself has the same disfunctional roots as this stuff does. Lets make some money for our companies that make tools for O-O languages. No wonder ontology is not more widely respected, if this is the kind of stuff that happens. Wm On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote: This is hopelessly confused. The technical part of it is nonsense. Just as a sample: _________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO), John F Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO), William Frank |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO), Kingsley Idehen |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO), William Frank |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |