On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:19 AM, Rijgersberg, Hajo wrote: (01)
> Dear Pat,
>
> Thanks for your mesaages. (02)
Thanks for replying :-)
>
>> Hajo, seems to me that this is a good illustration of why ontology
> needs to avoid philosophy :-) Its almost impossible to make a
> philosophical assertion that isn't controversial. For example...
>
> When one practices ontology, one is automatically practicing
> philosophy. (03)
I disagree. Philosophy, as a professional activity, is a rather arcane
branch of academe which has its own rules and professional standards.
Its chief concern is the analysis of arguments and counter-arguments,
often over extremely obscure points of detail which are all but
incomprehensible to anyone who is not a professional philosopher,
often indeed a professional in that particular sub-discipline of
philosophy. (If anyone disagrees, let them read any academic
philosophy journal, of the kind that citations in them would help a
tenure case in a department of philosophy.) In this it is very similar
to other highly specialized disciplines, of course. There is no
evidence for, and considerable pragmatic evidence against, the thesis
that ontology engineering is improved by approaching it with the tools
of philosophy, and certainly not with the methodologies of
contemporary professional philosophy. (04)
> And we should keep on doing that, in order to obtain ontologies of
> higher quality in the future. (05)
I am quite certain that this (that is, attempting to do real
philosophy) will not produce higher-quality ontologies, now or in any
forseeable future. To think that it will is a dangerous fallacy, IMO.
If anything, the shoe is on the other foot: professional philosophy
might benefit from using the tools of ontological engineering. (06)
> Of course, in favour of pragmatism, it may
> sometimes be good not to get stuck in philosophical considerations,
> and
> build an ontology.
> Probably we should do both (which, I think, we do).
>
>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please allow me to make a remark about measures (or mangnitudes) and
>>> quantities. I have seen several times that a measure (or magnitude),
>>> such as "3 kg", is regarded as a quantity. However, a quantity is a
>>> metrological aspect of a phenomenon, such as "the mass of my table"
>>> ("mass" is a metrological aspect
>>
>> Whoa. Mass is an 'aspect'? Surely not. Mass is, after all, one of the
> fundamental physical quantities. The particular mass that an object
> has
> might be considered to be a property of that thing, but mass
> *itself* is
> surely something beyond that. And in any case, why do you consider
> it to
> be 'metrological'? (Or does this simply mean, capable of being
> measured?)
>
> Yes, mass is one of the fundamental physical quantities. But is also a
> metrological property of an object or an event at the same time. (With
> "aspect", I meant "property".) (07)
Then please use the normal word, to avoid confusion. BTW, in idiomatic
English I think it would be more natural to say that an object *has* a
mass, rather than using 'mass' directly as a property. (08)
> What do you mean with the *particular* mass of an object or event? Do
> you mean the *value* that the quantity may have? (09)
I meant the particular mass, considered as a unique entity; if "the
mass of my table" is considered to be a referring phrase, then it is
whatever that phrase refers to. If mass is a property, then this would
be a trope. (010)
We now have aspects, properties, quantities and values. The vocabulary
is becoming confusing. If my table weighs 3 kg, then massOf is a
property which relates the table to something. I call that thing a
particular mass, in this case the mass 3kg. It in turn is related by
another relation (or maybe a function) called 'kilograms' to the
(pure) number 3. So, in your terminology, is the 'value' here 3kg, or
3? And what is the 'quantity'? (011)
> (It is important to
> distinguish the quantity from the measure/magnitude (the value) that
> it
> may have.) (012)
By 'quantity' here, do you mean the aspect/property? Or are values
distinct from properties? (013)
> "Metrological" is an important property of the kind of concepts that
> we
> are talking about. Indeed, it means capable of being measured or
> something like that. (014)
Can you give an example of a non-metrological property? (015)
>
>
>> A table is a phenomenon? What on earth does that mean? Surely a table
> is an object, if indeed one believes that there are objects at all.
>> But to not believe that is quite a stretch for most, er, ontologies.
>
> Is this perhaps the kind of philosophy that we should not be doing? (016)
This is not philosophy, just me trying to understand your intended
meaning. (017)
> (By
> the way, with the term "phenomenon" I was hoping to cover both
> "object"
> and "event", but I would be happy to use any other term.)
>
>
>>> ). There can exist a statement about the mass of my table, such as
> "the mass of my table = 3 kg".
>>
>> That the *statement* can exist is proved by the fact that you just
> wrote it. Do you mean to say, that such a statement is incorrectly
> phrased, or something like that?
>
> I only meant to say that with relation to a quantity a statement can
> be
> formulated. (018)
Um... OK, but that is so obvious that it does not need saying. I was
wondering if there was some other, deeper, meaning which you meant to
imply. (019)
>
>
>>> What we also often see is that a measure (or magnitude) is the value
>>> of a quanitty, such as "the mass of my table" --->> value---> "3
>>> kg".
>>
>> So, which is the proper formulation, on your view? (I am genuinely
> confused at this point.)
>
> I think both are proper formulations. Both are often used in practice. (020)
If they are both correct, then it follows that the relation called
'value' is reflexive. Is this really what people who use the second
formulation intend? (021)
Pat (022)
>
> Best regards, Hajo
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>
> (023)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (024)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (025)
|