ONT Re: Data Models, Ontologies, Logic
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jim Farrugia wrote:
>
> Jon and Matthew,
>
> I, too, would like very much to get a handle on the notions you mention
> below. And I think the recent exercise in discussing "data model" has
> helped a little bit. I agree with you both and with John Sowa that
> the important thing is to be aware of how interested parties may
> be using the term. And I also think that the purposes of why we
> work with data, models, and theories ought to be kept in mind.
>
> I remain curious about what useful distinctions
> can be drawn between data models and ontologies,
> because (among other reasons) I think the question
> "Why bother with an ontology when we can use a
> data model instead?" deserves to be answered.
>
> I wonder if it is worthwhile to consider the differences between ontologies
> that are created to understand the world but that aren't meant to be computed
> with, ontologies that are created to reflect some part of the world and 'are'
> meant to be computed with, and data models. I am still reading what John Sowa
> wrote the other day about Matthew's distinctions ...
>
> I appreciate very much the discussion this thread.
Jim,
My "desert island model" of a data model
will be the lowest common denominator of
what we've collectively culled together
up to this point, so something about
the "shape and sense" of the data.
Let me point to a continuity between data and theories.
They are both types of signs. The kinds that we have
in mind have reference to a world that is real to us.
I call that an "objective world" (OW), or sometimes
an "object domain", or sometimes just an "object".
And here we connect up with all category theory.
In sundry scents of the name "category theory".
Signs make sense by having interpretant signs.
The process of going from sign to interpretant
is called "interpretation" by some, at least,
in some senses of "interpretation", and it
is also referred to as "semiosis" by many.
Computation is a special case of semiosis.
Inference is a special case of semiosis.
Many other interesting things are too.
I need to keep to concrete stuff for a while,
so I will be returning to my initial example:
http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04113.html
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o