ONT Re: Entangled Ontologies
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Sorry, I forgot to change the address.
I intended this for a more desultory
discussion on the Ontology Sublist.
DM = Douglas McDavid
JA = Jon Awbrey
DM: I agree that the heart of the problem is "the "embedded" character or the
"situated" nature of our most basic conceptual systems". It seems to me
that the biggest contribution of this effort would be progress towards
a principled method of sorting out the various embedding situations
within which and across which communication is desired. This is
the source of my recent and previous postings about an ontology
of purpose as a possible direction for that method. I don't
think I'm making myself very clear in that regard, but I'm
likely to keep trying.
You are, of course, spitting in the wind
whenever you try to talk about purpose
in some circles. I am going to be
dropping the prefix "ontology of"
as a way of validating discussion
of whatever follows it, and return
to my former pretense "theory of".
When you say "theory of" something,
everybody tends to keep in mind how
hypothetical it is, contingent on
many external checks, and likely
to be just one alternative among
many competing theories. Our old
friend Count K. spoke of the bad
reactions that human beings are
pre-disposed to have to certain
molecules of syntactics and it is
beginning to seem to me that the
word "ontology" is one of the most
debilitating of known hallucinogens.
Be that as it may, I have posted in another couple of notes some of my more
concentrated reflections on theories of purpose, especially in relation to
theories of signs, and the kinds of frameworks that we might need someday
for discussing "pragmata" of all kinds:
http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04226.html
http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04227.html
Back to the Land of the Lotus Munchers,
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> Subj: 10 Jun 2002 -- Entangled Ontologies
> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 21:48:23 -0400
> From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> To: SUO <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>
> Frank, John,
>
> I will continue to focus on the features that potentially
> distinguish ontology standards from the kinds of standards
> that have been done before.
>
> One of the features that I am trying to get a handle on is sometimes
> described as the "embedded" character or the "situated" nature of our
> most basic conceptual systems. This makes a big difference in even so
> simple a thing as the caution against the gensym fallacy. In a system
> where you can freely change the name of everything in sight, only the
> axioms determine the meanings, and only to the extent that they can.
> But culturally situated systems are just not like that. Words are
> bound to their usages in the cultural envelope, and meanings are
> embedded in practices over which we never have complete control.
>
> I have never thought of myself as being especially slavish toward
> any of the preveiling fashions, either faddish or dyed in the wool,
> and it makes me uneasy to hear myself repeating the admonitions of
> my former teachers, but even I recognize that you can't just go out
> and re-invent some subject all over again without paying attention
> to what's been done before and what's considered by practitioners
> in the field to be basic and standard already. At least one of
> our starter documents does this at almost every turn. I have
> given them references and standard definitions in the areas
> that I have some background in. It does not seem to be
> important to them to know what is standard already.
> This seems bizarre to me.
>
> JA: Is it a programming or writing workshop?
>
> FF: I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'd guess that this is
> similar to the "workshops" of ISO/IEC and other organizations.
>
> I was trying to pin down a certain attitude toward criticism
> that I have seen exemplified before. Here, I was thinking of
> settings in which the criticism of each other's efforts can be
> brutally honest, and yet everyone more or less gets that it all
> comes out of a passion for the craft and not a personal animus.
> Maybe it has to do with the stings and arrows being washed away
> in the drunken revel at the end of the workshop, but I'm hoping
> that isn't the only balm in gilead. (<<<--- hackneyed cliche).
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o