On 28 Jan, at 12:54 , Chris Welty wrote: (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. (02)
That's what doesn't seem possibly to me in the case of "formal
ontology" (which is the only notion of ontology where *precise*
definition should be expected). (03)
> 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. (04)
Well, maybe such a definition could be useful, but I'm just doubtful
that you could do it in a way that wouldn't rule in some theories
you'd want intuitively to rule out and rules out some theories you'd
want intuitively to rule in. (05)
> 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. (06)
Impossible to define rigorously; questionable whether an informal
definition would be useful or intuitively correct. (07)
>>> 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?
>
> 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. (08)
Well, changing the P's and Q's to the likes of "airline", "flight",
and "destination-of" doesn't make the logical theory refer either! (09)
>> Give folks the
>> word and teach them how to create *good* ontologies -- by example, by
>> isolating general, qualitative principles of good practice, etc.
>
> Sure, I want that, too. (010)
Of course. (011)
>>> 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.
>
> Hmmm - to continue your analogy what you are saying is that music
> should be defined as "a collection of notes". (012)
No!! This would be continuation of my analogy only if I had proposed
defining an ontology to be a set of random character sequences in a
logical language! All logical theories consist of well-formed
sentences of a language; they just might not make for anything
ontologically "beautiful". (013)
> 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:
>
> 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
>
> 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. (014)
Chris, I would have to say that this definition of "music" is very
much analogous to my proposed definition of "ontology". Aesthetics
are virtually absent (except perhaps for the descriptively wan
qualities of "having unity and continuity"); it seems to me an
attempt to be as broad as possible and still be reasonably precise.
Just like my proposed definition. (015)
(I also think you'll find that musicologists would find the attempt
to define "music" (unlike "formal ontology") an utterly hopeless
task.) (016)
>> 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.
>
> E-flat (which from a saxophone sounds like a raspberry). (017)
Only when you're playing it, I suspect! :-) (018)
-ChrisM (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (020)
|