The progress of UF (was Future directions for ontologies and terminologies)
Quoting Jim Shaw <jeshaw2@comcast.net>:
> ... If you are
> seeking a "Universally Unified Ontology", I suggest you'll have to wait
> until the Philosophers, Theoretical Physicists, and Religious Clerics
> find a way to unify their positions on reality.
Well said. To be more accurate, I'd say analytical philosophers (not
continental) with the knowledge of theoretical physics, some
mathematics, and without any religious clerics. There will not be
any single great discovery in physics that would suddenly explain
everything. The discoveries in special sciences have to be united
into a cohesive whole. According to Karl Popper, the total science
is moving forward towards the objective truth a bit by bit by
learning from mistakes. To remind everyone, metaphysics, also
called the 1st philosophy, is usually divided into general
metaphysics (=ontology), and into special metaphysics (=systematical
theology, cognitive sciences,...). It is almost a full-time job to
get on the top of the present-day discussion of the field of academic
metaphysics. That is why there is a need also for another sort of
pragmatic approach that suits for people who work with information
systems. This Sowa's Unified Framework, I understand, is some sort
of a pragmatic method. Sure, Peirce's 123 is applicable anywhere, and
it is good to have only the necessary and sufficient axioms to start
with, but in addition to that, UF is still a total mystery to me.
Maybe the idea of UF has now been clarified.
John, has there been any progress with UF recently? Please repeat
all the ideas about UF that you see fit.
Avril