RE: ONT Re: Data Models, Ontologies, Logic
Dear Jim,
See comment below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Farrugia [mailto:jim@spatial.maine.edu]
> Sent: 29 May 2002 16:38
> To: Jon Awbrey
> Cc: Ontology; Peirce Lyrist; SemioCom
> Subject: Re: ONT Re: Data Models, Ontologies, Logic
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
MW: I think it is just horses for courses. Data models grew up to support
database design. It is not surprising that they are quite good if that is
what you are doing.
>
> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> JA - Jon Awbrey
>
>
> JA: > The problem, as I see it, is to reconnect the different senses
> > of words like "data", "description", "model", "theory", "world"
> > that are employed by all brands of viewers of the current scene.
> >
> > John Sowa has pretty picture of this that keeps coming
> back to me:
> > http://www.jfsowa.com/figs/mthworld.gif
>
>
> JA: > But I feel like we may be getting distracted with this
> quibble over
> "model".
> > I'm already used to the way that it's used in six or
> seven different
> fields.
> > And I'm the one who said that ambiguity would be
> unavoidable, if you
> recall.
> > So that is not the problem, not for me. The problem is
> keeping clear
> about
> > what senses of the word we are using at any given time, and not
> letting any
> > one usage prevent us from remembering the purpose of
> data, models,
> theories.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
>
>
>