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