SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 15
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
PG = Pierre Grenon
PG: The first three lines in the following paragraph
were seemingly too long and were broken in the
message. Just to let you know that this not
a problem with your computer but others on
this list experience the same inconvenience.
I'll try to adjust. On my old Netscape browser, there's a parameter box
under <edit> <preferences> <mail_&_groups> <messages> that allows one to
set the line wrapping length for outgoing email, and I imagine there's
probably something analogous on all the newer systems.
JA: It is always a bit tricky to say this right. If we say
"reality is just a concept", that all of its objects are
"concepts" or "constructs" or "fictions" or "hypotheses",
that is a scion of colloquy, a slip of loose talk that will
eventually get us into trouble if we, or most likely others,
take it too literally. Better if we say that our knowledge of
things is conceived, constructed, pretended, preposed to refer
to a substance beneath the superfices that appear in experience,
moreover, that a great many of the signs that we use to convey
and store this knowledge are of an artificial proxy, in stead
of a natural kind.
JA: Look, in my everyday life I operate on pretty much
the same set of "un-reflective folk assumptions" ...
PG: no shit?
Well, I may have exaggerated just a bit,
but I rechnen'd you would get the irony.
JA: (URFA)
PG: I think that UFA would be a better acronym.
I was looking ahead to the day when someone went
to look up "unidentified flying object" (UFO) on
a search engine, and might have been overwhelmed
by absurd speculations of "knowledge engineers".
So I pre-tendered a hyphen-thesis, in stead.
JA: ... that we all know and love and hate under the dublious mis-monicker
of "common sense". But when it comes to research oriented scientific
ontologies or your average upper-level technical ontologies, especially
of an order that we'd like to get computers to obey, then a different
regime and a whole new order of regimen succeeds on the scene.
PG: Oh, I see. In French 'regime' means diet and at first I thought
you were saying that you tend to change your diet when it comes
to research oriented scientific ontologies or Matthew's average
upper-level technical ontologies which sounds really silly.
After poundering the issue, what I read makes slightly
more sense.
De gustibus etc. But the usage goes back
to Hippocrates, whose 'Aphorisms' provide
us with some of the first formulations in
occidental recipes of diagnostic thinking.
That's probably what I intended to convey.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o