FYI. (01)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:02 PM
>To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
>Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Thank you.
>
>John,
>
>But it's also the case that "disposition" becomes/has become significant in
>metaphysics, and thus perhaps derivatively (or the converse) in ontology:
>perhaps the influence is mutual. It's tricky. I myself was convinced until
>fairly
>recently that it was a kind of spurious notion, introducing a kind of teleology
>into ontology (why do you need dispositions when you have properties?),
>hence the earlier thread I introduced in the Ontolog Forum last year. Why
>the new interest? Because I became more interested in causation issues.
>
>I don't think the philosophical dispositionalists are "behaviorists" in your
>terminology (or mine, which I probably share with you, and revolt against,
>remembering the Chomsky arguments). But they are a reaction against
>Humean ontology, I think. See:
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dispositions/.
>
>Some say dispositions introduce modal notions, but I'm not yet inclined to
>that.
>
>I can't say I'm satisfied yet with what I've read about dispositions, but it
>is a
>background reading/thinking activity I'm engaged on.
>
>Thanks,
>Leo
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>>summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:10 PM
>>To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Thank you.
>>
>>Dear Matthew, Pavithra, and Ian,
>>
>>This thread is one more example where many discussions of ontology
>>begin to address a very important issue, but without using a suitable
>>foundation for dealing with it.
>>
>>MW
>>> I think [Pavithra] nicely explained why there is a need to talk in terms
>>> of capabilities. I agree all the things you mention are also part of
>>> the mix, but capabilities gives you a way to bring it together.
>>
>>I agree that the notion of 'capability' is critical to many issues
>>in ontology, but it brings with it many associated notions.
>>
>>PK
>>> A capability can be translated as a function or service that meets certain
>>> set of requirements as defined by stake holders/organization/interested
>>parties .
>>
>>But as Ian said, a capability is not a function or service.
>>
>>IB
>>> The concept of capability as a tool for strategic planning originates in the
>>military.
>>
>>The concept is much older, but the recognition that capabilities are
>>critical for strategy is important.
>>
>>IB
>>> The whole idea is to allow strategic thinking without resorting to design
>>> of processes. Capabilities should be expressed in terms of outcomes -
>>> what, not how.
>>
>>I agree, but I'd add the word 'why'. When the military (or anybody
>>else) raises issues about strategy, the fundamental question is *why?*
>>
>>The questions What? and How? raise tactical issues: "What?" asks
>>for a description of the desired outcome. "How?" asks for a method
>>for achieving the outcome -- i.e., getting from where we are to where
>>we want to be.
>>
>>But "Why?" is the penetrating question that addresses strategy.
>>The questions "What?" and "How?" are tactical questions. But "Why?"
>>get to the heart of the matter: *desire.* What is the reason that
>>makes one outcome more desirable than another? Instead of 'desire',
>>use the related words 'goal', 'purpose', 'intention', or 'reason'.
>>
>>IB
>>> The concept has now found much wider use in the commercial world -
>>> see http://hbr.org/2010/06/the-coherence-premium/ar/1 and it also
>>> seems to have found a home in IT for portfolio management and
>>> application rationalisation,
>>
>>Yes, but. In every one of those applications, the question "Why?"
>>is always lurking behind the scenes.
>>
>>IB
>>> It's a very tricky concept to model in an ontology.
>>
>>I agree that most ontologists ignore it -- at their peril.
>>
>>Peirce addressed it in depth. But his terminology of Firstness,
>>Secondness, and Thirdness scares people. That is why I suggest
>>the question words what, how, and why.
>>
>>The question "What?" can be answered with a monadic predicate
>>that describes something by itself. The question "How" can be
>>answered with a dyadic relation of some agent (1) acting upon
>>something (2). But the question *Why?* always requires a triadic
>>relation, implicit or explicit, in the answer: Somebody (1) did
>>or will do something (2) for some purpose or reason (3).
>>
>>IB
>>> Chris Partridge did a lot of work on this for us - esp.
>>> around the dispositional aspects of capability.
>>
>>The word 'disposition' was introduced by behaviorists to avoid
>>coming to grips with purposes and intentions. Instead of saying
>>that X has a purpose or intention to do something, they just
>>say that X has a "disposition" to do it.
>>
>>Whenever anybody uses the word 'disposition', I just ask "Why?"
>>And I keep repeating "Why?" until they break down and say explicitly
>>what was the purpose, intention, or reason.
>>
>>It's also the most important question that Socrates asked. It drove
>>some powerful Athenians crazy. That's why they gave him the poison.
>>
>>John
>>
>>__________________________________________________________
>_
>>______
>>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/OntologySummit2013/
>>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>>bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
>>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>___________________________________________________________
>______
>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/OntologySummit2013/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (03)
|