RE: SUO: RE: Thirdness vs Local Inconsistencies; was Ontology,Epistemology, Semiotics
Thanks for the reply, Chris!
I agree that the second of your two options is more rigorous, though the
former can be made to approximate the latter if people will stake a claim
in advance as to what they expect the system to say and then hold to it
with intellectual honesty! But opportunities for fudging will always creep
in in practice.
Cheers,
Cathy.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> Cathy,
>
> I was struck by your point,
>
> CL> Are we stuck with 2), or could we proceed to 3? I think we could - how?
> Applications,
> applications, applications...
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion.
>
> However it seems to me that your 3) can be interpreted in two ways.
>
> One is using an ontology for an application such as text analysis where we
> then, by inspection of the results, decide whether the results are correct.
>
> Another is where the application is operational - it actually does
> something - pays bills etc. If the bills do not get paid someone complains.
>
> It seems to me that the first 'interpretation' is in some ways has a 2)
> flavour and the second a 3) flavour. If we accept Pierce's distinctions this
> would give the second 'interpretation an edge - rightly so, in my
> experience.
>
> So if we are looking for applications - I suggest, other things being equal,
> we prefer operational ones.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Legg, Phd Cycorp, Inc.
Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr., ste 100
www.cyc.com Austin, TX 78731-1615
download OpenCyc at http://www.opencyc.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------