SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
Matthew West wrote:
>
> Dear Jon,
>
> This is one of the places where I came in.
>
> > Exercise for the Reader:
> >
> > Try to imagine that -- just fora while -- we leave off trying
> > to decide the "one right way", as Goethe put it, and just try
> > to describe the current situation as it is, I mean, the state
> > of affairs in which everyone has his or her or its pet theory
> > of the world, and just try to muse about what it would demand,
> > what kind of language would it require to represent this very
> > sort of situation? This is just the "Dream of Leibniz" (DOL),
> > deja vu all over again, but still, you have to ask yourself:
> > "Why are we still so vastly far from its actual realization?"
> > "Why do I have to ask myself that!?", you ask? It is a part
> > of the exercise. You may, as always, choose not (not choose?)
> > to accept the assignment. That's an axiom for all it's worth.
>
> My answers to this question are in the IIDEAS architecture
> (Integration of Industrial Data for Exchange Access and Sharing)
> which can be found at:
>
> http://iso18876.org/
>
> The nub is to allow everyone to have it their way.
> The cost is the interfacing between them. When the
> number of viewpoints is large, it becomes more efficient
> to seek an "integration model" or ontology that the others
> can be translated into and out of. It isn't important for
> this ontology to be a viewpoint that anyone wants to use.
> It is important that it is accurate and precise, and that
> other world views can map in and out.
>
> This is why I prefer a 4D ontology. Not the one true way,
> but the crossroads for all ways. This may be optimistic,
> so I will settle for something that most things can map
> into most of the time.
>
> Regards
> Matthew
> =============================================
> Matthew West
> Operations & Asset Management
> Shell Services International
> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
> Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
> http://www.shellservices.com/
> http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west
> =============================================
> Also:
> Shell Visiting Professor
> The Keyworth Institute
> The University of Leeds
> =============================================
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Matthew,
Let us see if we can loosen our grip on the object, just a bit,
and shift our focus, for just a while, to the grippers thereof.
What do you guess that it takes to articulate, to bear witness,
to characterize, to describe, even to formalize this POV of MW?
Could you cast it in the form of an axiom set, a novel, a poem,
a program, a sculpture, a symphony, or a medium of your choice?
And once you have articulated your POV in whatever fashion you
see fit, could you reflect on the patterns and the laws of its
formation well enough to anticipate the orbit of its evolution?
These are the sorts of questions that I am really every bit as
fascinated with as I am with whatever objects are projected to
exist with respect to the particular POV that we find at issue.
And if it comes to the manner in which a POV might be realized,
let me just declare my medium of choice: I will take my stand
on those specific facilities of understanding that I have come
to know as "pragmatically effective descriptions" (PED's), and
if you seek a clue as to what these are, I will provide a hint
in the style of the following, the so-called "pragmatic maxim":
| Consider what effects that might conceivably
| have practical bearings you conceive the
| objects of your conception to have. Then,
| your conception of those effects is the
| whole of your conception of the object.
|
| Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Maxim of Pragmatism", CP 5.438
I may return to the object world, the objective system,
and to the dimensions of their being, for which I fear
that three or four will just not fit, but another time.
Until Then,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤