Re: SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Pierre,
I sympathize with your complaints about making these
discussions relevant to the task of developing ontologies
suitable for computer applications.
But I do want to point out that computer systems are
nothing more nor less than giant semiotic tools for
processing signs that relate to things in the real world.
> Semiology and epistemology are relevant only to a small portion
> of ontology (e.g., as fields and correlated activities accounted
> by a social ontology on a par with basketball playing and erotic
> theater). Other than that, this doesn't go further than the
> dead end of metatheoretic flourish.
And as semiotic systems, there are strong similarities between
playing basketball and running a business or between erotic
theater and the legal system of laws, legislatures, and courts.
However, I admit that the connections are not obvious, and I
strongly urge everyone who indulges in "metatheoretic flourishes"
to show explicitly how they relate to the topic under discussion.
Jesus spoke in parables, which commentators have discussed for
the past two thousand years. The lesser prophets among us
should make their points explicit.
John