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.
These are implementation issues.
> > 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.
Sure, nice point for a social ontology.
> 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.
I'm striving for empathy here, but can hardly see any other relation than
disconnection.
> Jesus spoke in parables, which commentators have discussed for
> the past two thousand years. The lesser prophets among us
> should make their points explicit.
Funny, discussing with Matthew and you put me in the mood for reading some
piece of gospels (maybe your first names). At some point, Mark goes:
"And he said unto them, is a candle brought to be put under a bushel or under a
bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?"
On the moment, I thought: 'Hell, this is good stuff for OpenCyc!' Now that you
make this remark, this seems like a twice as good piece of common sense.
Pierre
> John
>
>
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon, IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/