D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
How can philosophical ontology PO help to understand or benefit in any way
computer science ontology CO, and vice versa? Can and should PO and CP be
somehow separated, and how are they connected?
First, it is hard to see any other ways how CO can help PO, except in the
same way than CO helps any other branch of enquery, e.g. in the form of
information retrieval systems, but PO can be of assistance in some ways to
CO. In the scope of discussion forums such as SUO and Ontolog-forum,
knowledge of PO is certainly welcome. Knowing it helps to understand at
least a part of what should not be debated over, and what has already been
debated over a long time ago. In this sense, wide knowledge of PO can reduce
unnecessarry debates and disputes, and can make discussions more mature and
up to date. In CO similar sorts of structures (in a wide sense) can be used
as in PO. Knowledge of the corresponding structures in PO prevents us from
inventing the wheel again. But it is also possible that PO creates more
unnecessary discussion around CO than it reduces, and in many cases,
re-inventing the wheel takes less time than to get acquinted deeply with PO.
Two examples of this:
Wittgenstein's family resemblance can make us prevent a plain top-down
approach with large-scale data retrieval, but the overwhelming success of
text-based search engines has tought us this in any case. Take RDF, even
though we can draw an analogy with triplets with e.g. Peircean triads, the
triplets work as well without the knowledge of Peircean triads, and the
people who defined RDF, probably did not even know Peirce.
Another difficulty in PO, and in having some strong attitude e.g. in the
philosophy of mathematics is, that the attitude can make the person blind to
other apprroaches. There are different schools in PO. People working around
CO can belong, knowingly or unknowingly, to some school, and hold the
according ideology. This can prevent progress, and again make discussions
opinionated.
But of course it is good to debate in sustainable limits. People working
around CO are scientists who are sometimes willing to debate over
ontological topics, both CO and PO, and this is good because spreading of
information and ideas is good in general. A debate that has even a purely
philosophical flavour is not all bad, because it can bring clarity into the
top, which can affect all the way thru to the bottom. In a nutshell, clarity
in PO means an overall clarity, which affects indirectly everything else.
However, even though debating over difficult topics of PO can be slightly
amusing, it might be mostly painful, just because the topics are wide and
difficult, and discussion threads get easily drifting without control.
All sorts of threads evolve in discussion forums. Communication and sharing
of information is good, when the goal is to reach an understandment. Many of
these discussions have a philosophical flavour. So, to borrow the words of
Sowa, we must philosophize, said the great naturalist Aristotle -- if only
to avoid philosophizing.
It is a nice idea to have a clear PO, but trying to achieve it within a CO
forum might not be always so nice. What can be done at least is to tru to
follw the Socratic virtues: to really want to solve the problem at hand and
try to understand what the others are trying to say and to appreciate
others' comments like a miner appreciates gold, and not just drive one's own
dogma, to aim to make the ideas short and clear.
I could not come up with anything more conclusive, so please let comments flow.
Avril Styrman