Re: [uos-convene] RE: Upper Ontology Summit

["Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 
> > MW: Ontology is supposed to be about what exists, not the meaning
> of
> > terms.
>
> CM: I think you're equivocating on both "ontology" and
> "about" here,
> Matthew.  True enough, a *given* ontology purports to be about
> some
> chunk of the world.  But we talk about the world by using language,
> and
> surely it is a primary function of an ontology to fix the meanings
> of
> its component terms with sufficient rigor to faciliate the accurate
> exchange of information.  In that sense big-O Ontology -- the
> nascent
> science of constructing and using little-O ontologies -- is very
> much
> about meaning.  In fact, I would argue that Ontology is much more
> about
> meaning than "what exists".

There are many expressions whose meanings are of no (specifically
ontological) interest to ontology, e.g.:

good, valid, rational, Abelian group, entailment, disjunction, doubtful,
creamy ...

Hence the question arises, which sorts of expressions are of interest to
ontology (= Greek: 'science of entities'). My suggestion would be: those
which designate entities. 

BS