ONT Re: Data Models, Ontologies, Logic
Jon,
> 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: OK. Some others might be:
* we can gather them up, store them somewhere, and find them again;
* it may be possible to combine them in interesting, useful, or
pleasurable ways; and it may be useful to know what kinds of data
we have, so we can determine the ways it might make sense to combine
them.
* we may be able to compare one group of data to another;
* we may be able to compare one datum to another;
* we may be able to map the data to other things besides their
referents (e.g., numerical values of heights and weight to a visual
display);
> 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) ??
>
JA: sorry, but that sort of thing happens all the time, i mean, on purpose.
Yes, but does the fact it happens all the time on purpose make it
less important?
JA: > 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 don't think we do need to choose. Can you explain to me (or point
me to an explanation of) the triple interactions you speak of?
JA: > a really important thing is the integral whole of the relevant sign
relation L c OxSxI.
JF: What do you mean, "the integral whole"?
JA: a really important aspect of that is how we transform signs into
signs in regard to an object or objective.
JF: Can you elaborate (in just a few sentences?)?
JA: 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.
JF: still thinking...
Jim