uos-convene
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Upper Ontology Summit convention <uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:38:20 -0000
Message-id: <A94B3B171A49A4448F0CEEB458AA661F02FC9C36@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Chris,    (01)

I wonder if we are at cross purposes. I think you may be talking
aboiut terms in a formal language, whilst I am talking about terms
in a natural language.    (02)

If that is true, then my comment on the text would be that this 
should be made clear.    (03)

Regards    (04)

Matthew    (05)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Menzel [mailto:cmenzel@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 22 February 2006 18:36
> To: West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> Cc: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: Re: [uos-convene] RE: Upper Ontology Summit
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 05:43:33PM -0000, West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> wrote:
> > I'm not arguing that language is not important, just that it is not
> > ontology.  
> 
> Well, I don't think anyone would disagree with *that*.
> 
> > Mostly I hope we are talking about exchange between 
> computers, so e.g.
> > English language terms are not a critical element - not 
> many databases
> > read English, and it is between databases that most 
> computers exchange
> > information.
> 
> I was not thinking about natural language at all, but the terms in
> whatever formal representation language we are using to write our
> ontologies.  And my claim is that big-O Ontology is very much about
> fixing the meanings of the terms in those languages.  But look, to
> assign meaning is to express a purported word/world connection, so the
> endeavor is unavoidably connected to questions of existence -- I just
> don't happen to think the answers to a lot of those questions 
> matter all
> that much to effective knowledge engineering.
> 
> > So in ISO 15926 we distinguish between the thing of 
> interest, and the
> > term(s) that might be used to designate that thing. 
> 
> Well, distinguishing words from their referents is of course an
> essential distinction to make.  
> 
> > Now whilst I accept that this amounts to giving a meaning to a term,
> 
> Right, if by "this" you mean the association of a thing with a term.
> 
> > this is a by-blow of ontologically identifying that there are terms
> > and objects that they refer to as part of the ontology.
> 
> You lost me there.
> 
> > So it worries me if what we think we are really doing is defining
> > terms.
> 
> If by "defining" we mean not only the strict sense in which a defined
> term is in principle dispensable but also *axiomatizing*, i.e., fixing
> the meanings of primitive terms by means of sentences that 
> express their
> properties and logical connections, then I think that is pretty much
> exactly what we are doing -- and I am nonplussed as to the grounds of
> your worries.  Ontology is about fixing meaning, but we don't do so
> aimlessly or arbitrarily.  We write axioms that reflect our intuitive
> and/or scientific understanding of some domain and that embody
> assumptions (e.g., that future objects are no less real -- 
> and hence no
> less available as values of our variables -- than objects in the
> present) that might streamline the expression of that 
> understanding.  So
> it's misleading to say that, in Ontology, "what ... we are 
> really doing
> is defining terms" as if defining/axiomatizing itself is the endgame.
> The endgame is usefulness -- an ontology must serve to clarify our
> understanding of its domain and enhance our ability to manage, reuse,
> and share the information about the domain that we deem important.  If
> you also want to go on from there and draw philosophical 
> conclusions to
> the effect that this ontology or that gets at the True Nature 
> of Things
> or more clearly reveals What Really Exists, well, knock 
> yerself out.  As
> a philosopher, I do think that there is (philosophically) interesting
> and (philosophically) important hay to be made there.  But as a
> knowledge engineer, I don't much care.
> 
> Chris Menzel
> 
> 
>     (06)

 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit    (07)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>