>> PH> 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.
>>
>>
> I think that is too bold a statement, and I would like to see the
> "pragmatic evidence against the thesis that
> ontology engineering is improved by approaching it with the tools of
> philosophy". (01)
Oh, for a start: the fact that OBO is founded on the idea of a
'continuant', a close-to-incoherent idea with its roots in 19th
century Polish phenomenology. (02)
[Hajo]: I don't understand this. What is OBO? What is a continuant? What is a
Polish phenomenology? (03)
> First: I hope you agree that ontologies are most effective when they
> define such categories (e.g. classes or relationship types)
> for which the category membership of a given phenomenon
>
> 1. is consensual among a large amount of individuals,
> 2. is valid across multiple contexts, and
> 3. remains valid over time. (04)
Certainly 3. And 1., provided that 'large amount' is not understood to
mean anything like 'majority'. But 2., no. I think most useful
ontologies are in fact precisely useful when they identify and
delineate a particular 'context', such as bioinformatics. But perhaps
this is not what you mean by 'context': this word, alas, is so
flexible in its meaning as to be almost useless in discussions like
this. (05)
[Hajo]: Especially an ontology of units of measure should be valid across
multiple contexts (2.). (06)
> (Also, we must find a good trade-off between granularity and ease of
> population - too subtle distinctions put a brake on populating
> respective knowledge bases, too coarse distinctions limit the degree
> of automation for processing the information - but that point is not
> needed for my argument.) (07)
[Hajo]: Between brackets, but a very important phrase! (08)
> I have no formal education in philosophy, unfortunately, but Welty's
> and Guarino's "OntoClean" work, and other contributions that employ
> subtle distinctions of categories of existence that are mainly
> rooted in philosophy, are the only significant guidance for that
> challenge I am aware of. I can exactly confirm what Alan Rector
> reported on OntoClean in 2002 - that it simplifies the argument for
> better ontological choices. (09)
OntoClean enforces some elementary distinctions and enforces a certain
internal consistency regarding the description of changes in
properties and relations. Certainly this is of use, just as strong
typing is of use in designing large software systems, and for much the
same reasons. But this is more like logical coherence than actual
philosophy. Do not confuse philosophy with something like 'clear
thinking'. Philosophy does require clarity of thought, but so do
theoretical physics and political history. (010)
[Hajo]: I'm also, unfortunately, not educated in philosophy, but as far as I
can think, originally, philosophy was clear thinking, or trying to do so.
Philosophy can "take place" (I don't know the right word) at so many levels,
please let's not claim the term only for a scientific discipline. Philosophy is
and is for all science. (011)
[Hajo]: (I would have to study Ontoclean. Seems interesting.) (012)
> In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor in his work on "Scientific
> Management" has given quite some evidence that finding the ideal
> conceptualization of a problem or task benefits from scientific
> methods in the course of the analysis, more than from pure
> motivation or practical experience in the domain. (013)
If true, that is strong evidence in favor of my thesis here.
Scientific method is about as far as one can get from the practice of
academic philosophy. (014)
[Hajo]: OK. So maybe we should not refer to philosophy anymore, but to
epistemology (as a relevant philosphical field in our exercise)? (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|