- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:30:37 -0800
- To: sauerkrautragout.13358628@bloglines.com
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
sauerkrautragout.13358628@bloglines.com wrote: > And imo OWL and other formalisms fosters hierarchical attitudes > not because computer scientist have authoritarian personalities, but because > over centuries this has proven to be a good approach to structure domain knowledge. A main problem with such imposed hierarchies is that what almost inevitably happens is that you get a lot of maps with no corresponding territories. We come to "believe in" stuff like diagnoses backed mostly by authority in medicine.The effects on the practice of medicine engendered by a theory based on "balancing the four humors" and extensive dependence on blood-letting is but one example. The "faith-based" ways of dealing with structure are onerous largely because their efficacy depends on enforcement rather than agreed-upon analytic methodology. That hierarchies are "evil" is corollary to ontologies deserving the same descriptor. Nothing does more to confuse the name with that which is named than to codify it - usually needlessly. Names are but strings used for temporary convenience. Love.
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 18:43:46 UTC