Perhaps the distinction between "philosophical" ontology and the
computational implementation is somewhat analogous to the distinction
between theoretical physics and experimental physics, but with the
levels of abstraction moved one step higher, where computational
ontology is similar to theoretical physics and philosophical ontology
is at a level of abstraction one step higher than theoretical physics.
Whether or not the analogy is at all helpful, I myself find the
discussions of philosophical ontologists useful and think of my
computer as a laboratory in which I can test various theories of
ontology to see how they perform in practical tasks. An example of a
practical task that I find intriguing is language understanding. (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
CNTR-MITRE
260 Industrial Way West
Eatontown NJ 07724
Eatontown: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Chris Welty
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:37 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft
> Statement for the Ontology Summit
>
>
>
> Tom Gruber wrote:
> > John Sowa wrote:
> >> 1. I don't believe that the definitions in philosophy and
> >> computer science differ in any significant way.
> >> 3. If possible, we should adopt a common definition that
> >> is acceptable to both fields
> >
> > The draft document is written as a logical walk down a set
> of distinctions,
> > so that we could discuss the source of disagreements and
> clearly identify
> > the point of departure. John's objections to the first and
> most fundamental
> > distinction (philosophy vs. computer science word senses)
> makes evident the
> > reason why certain topics are never "put to rest" by
> philosophers and other
> > dialectic sportsmen. To say there is no difference between
> what a professor
> > of Aristotelian ontology means by ontology and what a
bioinformatics
> > computer scientist managing a gene database means is absurd.
>
> Wow. I find the absurdity the other way around - and I have studied
> both. No matter what you study you will have armchair theoreticians
> and hands-on practitioners. Sounds to me like that is the
> distinction
> you are alluding to here. All ontology, whether practiced by
> "philosophers" or "computer scientists" is grounded in the
> same things.
>
> The biggest problem here is precisely this position of arrogance
> stemming from a belief that computer scientists have invented
> something new. I thought so, too, when I started doing this two
> decades ago as a computer scientist. But I was wrong; ontology is
> very, very, old. The only thing we (computer scientists) have added
> are ways to implement, test, and run them.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (05)
|