From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 1:34 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
Dear Leo,
LO: Of course it helps if
ontology engineers/implementors acquire a deep understanding of philosophy,
RC: How exactly does "a deep understanding of
philosophy" help engineers? That is certainly not obvious from the
discussions here. Most of the software people have agreed on objects and
events as the basis of systems. The philosophers on the list keep
debating about perdurants and endurants, and endless ways to split hairs that
have nothing to do with the software structures required by serious
applications.
So please, describe why you think "a deep
understanding of philosophy" can help engineers?
LO: and if philosphers acquire a
deep understanding/practice of ontology engineers/implementors.
RC: Unless philosophers can somehow produce a payoff, a
value as seen by the said engineers, what good are they to the engineers?
Dilletantes on either side
obscure the issues of both, and spend their time on endless argumentation.
So far that seems to have been the progress of this
thread.
Sincerely,
Rich
Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 10:17 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
John,
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.
Thanks,
Leo
>-----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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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