RE: D1. Summary: Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Dear Azamat,
You need to look at what John says more closely. What he has said
(on more than one occasion) is that an upper ontology should only
have axioms about things like specialization and whole-part.
This is as much because it is a common problem with ontologies
that they put too many axioms too high in the ontology, when they
do not in fact apply as widely as they are purported to. This is
an understandable error, when most ontologies are developed with
a limited scope, and it can be hard to see that axioms might not
apply outside that scope.
This is not so much about being anti-foundational, as about making
sure that the foundations are foundations, and not the penthouse
suite.
Regards
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 621148
Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Azamat
> Sent: 13 March 2008 08:51
> To: John F. Sowa
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: D1. Summary: Separate computer science ontology from
> philosophical ontology
>
>
> Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:48 AM, John F. Sowa
> > I very strongly object to being labeled, so please do not call me
> an anti-foundationalist.
>
> John, you might oppose, but this is exactly your position
> bringing more harm
> than use for ontology.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
> To: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@HELSINKI.FI>
> Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: D1. Summary: Separate computer science ontology from
> philosophical ontology
>
>
> > Avril,
> >
> > Just one comment:
> >
> > > Of course, anti-foundationalists in ontology, like John Sowa,
> > > maintain that it is not even a good goal to try to achieve PPO.
> >
> > I very strongly object to being labeled, so please do not call me
> > an anti-foundationalist.
> >
> > As I have said many times, I am not opposed to foundations or to
> > people and projects that study foundations. But what I strongly
> > oppose is anybody or any proposal that says, suggests, or even
> > hints that the one true perfect foundation has been found or is
> > likely to be found within this century or the next.
> >
> > John
>
>