Tom, (01)
That is a very strong argument for rejecting many of the assumptions
that philosophers have been debating for centuries: (02)
> The "philosophical" question here is whether the mid-level ontology (for
> the vertical industry group) should include "installed product" as an
> ontological category. Whether or not it does, X and the other companies
> who use "installed product" as a category, or Y and the other companies
> who do not, will have to do a lot of database re-engineering in order
> to conform to the industry group ontology. (03)
If a term, such as 'installed product', is widely used in some field,
any philosopher who argues against using it as a category should climb
back into his or her ivory tower. The solution for Y is to add a
new category InstalledProduct with the definition "a product that
has been installed." That enables X and Y to interoperate. (04)
I'd like to quote from a book that is highly regarded by professional
philosophers and Amazon reviewers, all of whom give it 4 or 5 stars: (05)
David M. Armstrong (1989) _Universals: An Opinionated Introduction_,
Boulder: Westview Press. (06)
From page 1, where Armstrong introduces "the Problem of Universals": (07)
> So let me begin by saying what the problem is. It may turn out that
> it is really a pseudo-problem. That was the opinion of Wittgenstein
> and his followers, for instance. Quine is not far from thinking the
> same. But whether it is a real problem or not should not be decided
> in advance. (08)
From the concluding chapter (p. 135): (09)
> Metaphysicians should not expect any certainties in their inquiries...
> Of all the results that have been argued for here, the most secure, I
> believe, is the real existence of properties and relations. Whether
> they be universals or particulars is a more delicate matter, and just
> what properties and relations are required is obscure, and in any
> case not for the philosopher to determine. (010)
Exactly! For customers, the test of what's real is whether they're
willing to pay for it. An installed product passes that test.
Anybody who says it isn't either doesn't understand the issues or
is, as philosophers say, "in the grip of a theory." (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|