Sorry, more complete reference: (01)
Xiaowei Wang, Nicola Guarino, Giancarlo Guizzardi, and John Mylopoulos. 2014.
Towards an Ontology of Software: a Requirements Engineering Perspective. FOIS
2014.
https://www.academia.edu/8744511/Towards_an_Ontology_of_Software_A_Requirements_Engineering_Perspective. (02)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
>Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:20 PM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
>Learning - ZDNet- 2015.04.10
>
>You might look at this recent FOIS 2014 paper, which is still in the early
>stages
>of a more complete ontologization:
>Xiaowei Wang, Nicola Guarino, Giancarlo Guizzardi, and John Mylopoulos.
>2014. Towards an Ontology of Software: a Requirements Engineering
>Perspective.
>
>And the emerging Information Artifact Ontology by the U. Buffalo et al folks:
>https://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/.
>
>Thanks,
>Leo
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Barkmeyer
>>Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:58 PM
>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
>>Learning - ZDNet- 2015.04.10
>>
>>John,
>>
>>I agree with this:
>>> Possibility and necessity affect the logic, not the ontology
>>
>>I disagree with this in more than one way:
>>> They can be treated in the same way as plans for the future.
>>> For example, if you're designing an airplane or a bridge, it's a
>possibility until
>>it's actually built.
>>
>>The handling of future things is very much about what the ontological
>>commitments are. One "can" treat future things as 'possibilities', by making
>>that ontological commitment, but one can also treat them as 'facts' by making
>>a different commitment. In a 4D logic, for example, it is entirely
>acceptable to
>>provide the time stamp for temporal parts of a thing as future dates and
>times.
>>And it is a common practice in creating business calendars. It is also
>possible
>to
>>treat them as "mental events" a la Davidson. Future is yet another
>ontological
>>can of worms.
>>
>>My engineering (and semiotics) background objects to your example. The
>>design for an aircraft is a design, not an aircraft. The design exists
>>independently of its realization. The design itself may undergo state
>changes,
>>which are modeled in various ways, including "versions", which are much
>more
>>common than "temporal parts".
>>
>>And one can make the same argument about "plans" for future events. The
>>"plan" is the "mental event" that conceptualizes the expected event. It can
>>exist long before the actual event, which may never come to pass.
>>
>>In short, this is all about your ontology, and only some ontological choices
>>affect the choice of logic.
>>
>>-Ed
>>
>>P.S. Confusing a design for a thing with the thing itself is a semiotic
>error -- it is
>>ontologically simply wrong. The problem in many engineering disciplines is
>>that the design engineers *only* work with designs and prototypes, and they
>>use the *terms* for the actual things in describing their design objects. But
>>that is a term/denotation practice; and the denotation of the same terms in
>the
>>manufacturing and operations environment is different.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:13 AM
>>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
>>Learning - ZDNet- 2015.04.10
>>
>>Dear Matthew,
>>
>>Possibility and necessity affect the logic, not the ontology:
>>
>>> Another problematic category is possibilia (things that might be, or
>>> possibly are in some parallel universe).
>>
>>They can be treated in the same way as plans for the future.
>>For example, if you're designing an airplane or a bridge, it's a possibility
>until
>>it's actually built.
>>
>>> The criteria for including possibilia (or not) is utility vs the
>>> baggage that comes with the extra commitment.
>>
>>The categories of parts, part numbers, etc., might be empty in actuality, but
>>they are specified in the ontology by the same methods before and after the
>>things are built.
>>
>>There are, of course, issues about storing information about the future in the
>>database -- orders for future delivery of things that don't yet exist,
>reservations
>>for hotels, travel, etc.
>>The orders and reservations exist in the present (or past), but they refer to
>>things and events in the future.
>>
>>Tom Johnston wrote a book about time and temporal issues in databases.
>>Perhaps he might care to comment on this point.
>>
>>Following is an article in which I discuss issues about modality, possible
>worlds,
>>and the laws that govern them:
>>
>> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf
>> Worlds, models, and descriptions
>>
>>And by the way, possibilities are another area where a strictly nominalist
>>position (e.g., Quine's or Goodman's) gets into trouble.
>>
>>Clarence Irving Lewis, who defined the first modern versions of modal logic,
>>had been the chair of the philosophy department at Harvard while Quine was
>a
>>student and later a professor.
>>
>>But Quine was very strongly opposed to any version of modal logic and any
>talk
>>of possibilia. Hao Wang, who had earned a PhD under Quine's supervision,
>was
>>very critical of Quine's attitude. He called it *logical negativism*. See
>>
>> Wang, Hao (1986) Beyond Analytic Philosophy: Doing Justice
>> to What We Know, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>________________________________________________________________
>_
>>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
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|