On Feb 6, 2011, at 5:49 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: (01)
> On 2/6/2011 3:57 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>> Well I’m not going to say it is a hard and fast rule, but establishing
>> identity is pretty much the first thing I would attempt to do when
>> analysing any situation. Mostly because it is (in my experience) the
>> most efficient way to proceed. (02)
Yes , identity goes to the core of ontology, an indispensable consideration. (03)
>
> I agree with that point. The temporal implications are a practical
> recommendation, not a theoretical requirement.
>
> In practice, many, if not most, ontologies begin with a terminology.
> The clarification of the identity conditions might not begin until
> the informal definitions are analyzed and refined to precise
> specifications. (04)
This is general the case in the usage scenarios i'm considering, large scale
systems - large organizations/endeavors or ecosystems, with many organizational
units and no single accepted ontology. On such system there seem to be
naturally occurring examples of variations, such as legal point-of-view, work
specialisation, product/service/offerings and process differentiae etc. (05)
What Im looking at is how to use the ontology instrument (means/tool) to bring
parts together, into peoples work perspectives and their speech communities. In
this approach im not driving towards a 'perfect' usage of ontologies but a
usage that brings about a 'better' situation than without an ontological
instrument. (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (07)
|