Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> Chris-
>>
>> An erudite argument, as usual. But here is a logical theory:
>>
>> (forall (x) (if (P x) (Q x)))
>> (P a)
>>
>> This is the kind of logical theory you find all the time as
>> examples in papers by
>> logicians and by computer scientists who study properties of
>> logical languages and
>> algorithms for reasoning. They don't give a hoot for what it means
>> (what it refers
>> to) - it is an *example* of a bit of logical syntax that lets me
>> prove something
>> about P, Q, and a. (and, in fact, if you ask them what P means,
>> they will say "what
>> difference does it make?")
>>
>> Accepting ontology == logical theory trivializes ontology, IMHO.
>
> Yes, it trivializes the *word* in order to get folks to focus on
> *quality* -- it's so much more productive to focus on what's good/bad/
> right/wrong about an ontology than to try to figure out some way of
> throwing a semantic fence around JUST the right logical theories that
> deserve the honorific title. Dude, it's a waste of time! (01)
It sounds like we are saying the same things, as usual debating just
over which terms to tie to them. You want a notion of what is
good/bad and more importantly right/wrong. I want that, too, but I
want some of it to be part of the definition of ontology. I don't
want a semantic fence at all, just like you I want shades of gray, I
want judgments, etc., but I think all that should be part of the
definition. Perhaps you think by "definition" I mean something black
and white, by which each logical theory is either clearly in or
clearly out, but that is not what I mean. (02)
We already have a way of referring to just any logical theory, we
don't need another. Ontology is supposed to mean something like the
study of the nature of existence, of the kinds of things there are.
This should be part of the definition. (03)
>> It is exactly the
>> kind of thing I find myself fighting against time and time again.
>> It is the reason
>> the FOIS conference exists. I think its worth it to try and come
>> up with something
>> better.
>
> Really, Chris, is THAT what you're fighting? Aren't you fighting
> *bad* ontologies and *bad* ontological engineering? (04)
Well, sure, I fight that one, too, probably more often, but what I was
referring to above is a different matter. This is not really a
question of quality at all. A logical theory about P's and Q's in
order to test your reasoner or prove what fragment of FOL you are in,
or etc., is simply NOT an ontology. It doesn't refer to anything and
its not intended to. (05)
> Give folks the
> word and teach them how to create *good* ontologies -- by example, by
> isolating general, qualitative principles of good practice, etc. (06)
Sure, I want that, too. (07)
>> When writing standards, you can make use of words like "must"
>> "should" and "may" to
>> convey less-than-perfect definition.
>
> But the problem, by my admittedly dim lights, is that you won't get
> anything like definition at all. The idea of writing a standard for
> a notion of "ontology" that builds in vaguely specified qualitative
> features is like the idea of writing a standard for composing good
> music. (08)
Hmmm - to continue your analogy what you are saying is that music
should be defined as "a collection of notes". I don't want a
defintion of "good music", I just want a definition of "music", and
have that definition feed into the quality guidelines. And look,
indeed mw.com has an attempt there: (09)
1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in
combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition
having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical
sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony (010)
Note they specifically avoid leaving off either of these definitions
short of the "to produce..." or the "having...". That's what I want
for "ontology". And then we use the quality guidelines to flesh out
notions of unity, continuity, rhythm, melody, harmony. (011)
> It's a category mistake; we're not talking about a definable,
> standardizable thing here (at least, not in any useful sense).
> Standards can and should be written for things like logical languages
> and musical notation. Beyond that it's a matter of teaching/learning
> good practice. People start out writing bad music, but it's music
> all the same. (012)
E-flat (which from a saxophone sounds like a raspberry). (013)
-ChrisW (014)
>
> ChrisM
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> (015)
--
Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@xxxxxxxxx Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (017)
|