John, (01)
Of course it helps if ontology engineers/implementors acquire a deep
understanding of philosophy, and if philosphers acquire a deep
understanding/practice of ontology engineers/implementors. Dilletantes on
either side obscure the issues of both, and spend their time on endless
argumentation. (02)
Thanks,
Leo (03)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 1:31 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
>
>Tom,
>
>I completely agree with you:
>
>> What the history of Philosophy, and especially of ontology, shows us is
>> that important philosophers have not failed at the winnowing task, but
>> simply worked hard and carefully to -- with apologies for the shift of
>> metaphor -- slice the ontological pie in different ways.
>
>I would *never* try to stifle philosophical debate. That is absolutely
>essential for clarifying the issues and deciding what to represent,
>how to represent it, and what to do with the results.
>
>But everything that can be implemented on a digital computer can
>be expressed in first-order logic. Some extensions to FOL for
>supporting metalanguage and quantifying over relations and functions
>can simplify and clarify the mapping.
>
>What we have today is a huge amount of words taken out of context
>from the vast literature of philosophy and used to decorate the
>formal notations. It's OK to put some of those words (with
>citations to the original context) in the comments.
>
>But the meaning of the formalism is precisely defined by the
>model theory. None of the philosophical subtleties survive
>the translation from the original context into the software.
>
>When you use philosophical words to decorate the formal language,
>they are *worse* than useless because they confuse *everybody*:
>
> 1. The overwhelming majority of the programmers don't understand
> the philosophical issues. For them, those mysterious words
> may have some hidden meaning. So they carefully preserve them.
>
> 2. If those mysterious words weren't present, the programmers
> would examine the software to see exactly what is going on.
> But they have a vague feeling that those words have some
> deep power that goes beyond what is in the executable code.
>
> 3. For the philosophers who don't understand the software,
> they may have a comfy feeling that their ideas have somehow
> filtered down into the implementation. If so, they are
> even more confused than the programmers.
>
> 4. The result is a total breakdown in communication between
> the philosophers and the people who develop and use the
> software that is supposed to be based on the philosophy.
>
>My recommendation (copy below) is to force both sides to face
>the fact that digital computers are limited to FOL (or modest
>variations of FOL). Any terms that don't have a precisely
>defined mapping to FOL can't have any useful effect on any
>implementation -- but they can create a lot of confusion.
>
>Therefore, the philosophers and the implementers must agree
>on a simple terminology that *both* sides understand and that
>has a precisely defined mapping to what the computer does.
>
>John
>______________________________________________________________
>
>As a general strategy, I would recommend:
>
> 1. A formal logic with the barest *minimum* amount of terminology.
> It must at least contain FOL + the option of quantifying over
> functions and relations + the option of using metalanguage for
> talking about whatever languages are being defined.
>
> 2. A huge *purging* of the immense philosophical terminology
> to a minimal set that is formally defined in the logic of #1.
>
> 3. The option of designing an open-ended family of formal notations,
> linear and/or graphic, that have a precise mapping to #1 and #2.
>
> 4. There may be huge debates about how to map NL terminology
> (including any and all terms in philosophy, science, business,
> the arts, etc., to the terms in point #2). But any proposed
> solution must be defined in the logic and minimal terminology of
> points #1 and #2 (or #3, which is defined in terms of #1 and #2).
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|