ONT Re: Data Models, Ontologies, Logic
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
JF = Jim Farrugia
JA: So I will not forget that the most important thing about the data
is how it refers to the objective world from which it is gathered,
in the manner of signs that are abstractedly sampled from objects,
by virtue of which sampling they denote the vaster reality beyond.
JF: You mention one important aspect of data.
Why do you claim it's the most important?
let's just call it "narrative interest" or "rhetorical emphasis" for the moment.
feel free to mention some others, and then we can do the "compare and contrast".
JF: What about things like how bits of data can or can't be combined
(e.g., you can't (or perhaps can but shouldn't) add someone's age
to someone else's height) ??
sorry, but that sort of thing happens all the time, i mean, on purpose.
JF: Why, for instance, is the connection to the world more important than
the possible ways the data themselves can be connected with each other?
again, discounting the transient rhetorical factors, why do we have to choose?
this is precisely why i work within a sign-relational framework, so that i am
free to consider the triple interactions within OxSxI.
JF: I'm not saying I think that data's connection to the world is 'not' its most
important aspect (I haven't thought it through far enough yet), but I wonder
why you say it is and why other aspects might not be just as important?
a really important thing is the integral whole of the relevant sign relation L c OxSxI.
a really important aspect of that is how we transform signs into signs in regard to an
object or objective. still, if you do think it through, i suspect you will find that
the relation of concepts to a world we never made is the "sine qua non" of the rest.
jon awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o