Chuck, (01)
That is a good way of looking at an ontology: (02)
CW> "an artifact that represents some part of the world". (03)
And there are many other good ways, which may provide some
stimulating ideas. But that doesn't make them good definitions. (04)
For example, I like the following summary of evolution: (05)
"A random number generator with a filter." (06)
The random number generator makes arbitrary changes to the DNA,
and the filter is death, or at least the failure to produce
progeny. (07)
That is a very useful insight that can suggest some good
simulations, such as genetic algorithms. It can also clarify
the disputes between the intelligent designers and the scientists: (08)
1. The scientists prefer to assume a purely random generator
unless the evidence clearly points to some bias. (09)
2. Intelligent-designers prefer to assume that God biases
the generator. (010)
In either case, more detail would be needed to make those
one-line insights into suitable definitions. (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (013)
|