SUO: Re: What Next? "SUO-Compatible"?
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa
PH = Pat Hayes
JS: I believe that Pat's concluding paragraph should be addressed,
and one way to start is to begin with at least two examples:
one that conforms to SUMO, and another that does not.
Examples are often the best means of forcing such
airy discussions to get down to earth and say
something sensible:
JS, citing PH:
| None of this discussion makes any sense at all.
| Lets get concrete and then maybe we can make some
| progress. Suppose I write some code and I want to
| know if it conforms to the SUO standard. How exactly
| do I set about trying to find out? Or, if I claim that
| it does, how would someone prove me wrong? What kind of
| thing would constitute nonconformance? Don't answer in
| 'ontological' terms, ie by talking about 'using a concept';
| that isn't well-defined enough, since there is no way to
| even say what it means, in general, for a program to be
| 'using' a 'concept'.
[exultante deleted]
JA, chanting the mantra from CSP:
| Consider what effects that might conceivably
| have practical bearings you conceive the
| objects of your conception to have. Then,
| your conception of those effects is the
| whole of your conception of the object.
|
| Charles Sanders Peirce, 'The Maxim of Pragmatism', CP 5.438
PH: Not that it really matters, but it would be more accurate
to say that what Pat was talking about was a pragmatic
theory of standards conformance, not one of meaning.
I don't think I used 'meaning' anywhere in there,
did I?
JA, citing PH:
| Don't answer in 'ontological' terms, ie by talking about 'using a concept';
| that isn't well-defined enough, since there is no way to even say what it means,
| in general, for a program to be 'using' a 'concept'.----------------------^^^^^
JA: This whole discussion has been about the meaning, indeed, the meaningfulness of words
like "conformance", "consistency", "implementation", "model", "semantics", "standard",
and so on. If they don't mean anything, why the heck should anybody care about them?
I am just recognizing one of the sources of the whole idea of operational definition.
PH: Look at the citation: "what it means ... for a program to be 'using' a concept".
I was asking about a very specific usage, not about meaning in general, and
definitely not about 'meaning' as applied to ontologies or ontological content.
What a relief! -- I lost three days sleep just dreading that you would come back at me with
some quibble about how you only used your "mean" word in a "meaning opaque context" (MOC).
And of course I was taking it for granted that what it means to say that a program or
its machine interpreter is "using" a concept would be addressed by analogy with what
it means to say that a text or its human interpreter is "using" a concept.
And now you make me wonder: Are you saying that no concept of "conformant",
whether in regard to applications, implementations, ontologies, or whatever,
is meant to have a place in our ontology?
But that is all beside the point. The whole nub of this "exemplary pragmatic"
way of coming up with "rational operational definitions" (ROD's) is just this:
If it works for a few choice words that are giving us acute obscurities, maybe
it should not be spared the exercise of trying out on one or two or three more.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤