W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2006

Re: ontology, language, logic, and what we intend to do here in ONTAC: what DO we want to do in ONTAC?

From: Pdm <editor@content-wire.com>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 09:14:06 +0100
Message-ID: <44795BCE.7070205@content-wire.com>
To: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@mitre.org>
CC: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>, semantic-web@w3.org

Dear Leo

I am new to your list and I think its great resource that I might join 
at some stage

I understand your frustration about people getting sidetracked and that 
some threads maybe more relevant than others to what is at hand
But  additional information - unless totally unrelated - should not be 
seen as an obstacle to goal achievement, rather as contribute to it

Broader perspectives, a higher understanding of the top level issues, 
increased commnication flow and general improved sense of orientation
are likely to help any list ACHIEVE  any GOAL better and faster

Best wishes

PDM




. On the other hand I assure you that Obrst, Leo J. wrote:

>I would say ontology precedes language which precedes logic, but the
>latter makes our understanding of the former two much more precise and
>allows us to represent and know what we think we know.
>
>Also, by the way, discussion in its own right about these issues is not
>necessarily what we intend in the ONTAC forum. Instead, we would like
>to ACHIEVE.
>
>Perhaps a restatement of our goals is necessary now -- and
>periodically, to keep achievement of goals foremost in our minds and
>our discussions?
>
>Pat and founding members: care to restate the GOALS we want to ACHIEVE?
>
>
>Thanks,
>Leo
>
>ps. Discussion of all the philosophical, linguistic, and logical issues
>that surround our goals is very interesting, but we tend to get
>side-tracked and the readership (and writership, if you will) is
>getting educated in these issues, but progress is nearly non-existent.
>If I'm not mistaken, this distribution list is intended to resolve and
>get things done. Admittedly it is not yet like the disciplined effort
>to achieve specific goals that other standards based (or occasionally
>non-standards based) activities are, but perhaps it should be?
>
>
>_____________________________________________ 
>Dr. Leo Obrst       The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics 
>lobrst@mitre.org    Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics 
>Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305 
>Fax: 703-983-1379   McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA 
>  
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontac-forum-bounces@colab.cim3.net
>[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@colab.cim3.net] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 4:11 PM
>To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
>Cc: editor@content-wire.com; semantic-web@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics and Ontology and Semiotics
>
>Folks,
>
>All this discussion resembles the parable about seven blind
>men examining an elephant.  Each one examines one part in
>detail -- the trunk, the tail, an ear, a side, a leg, the
>underside, or the back -- and draws conclusions that are
>diametrically opposed to any of the others.
>
>Language has even more sides than an elephant.  When we're
>doing math, science, or business, we do use the logical side.
>But frequently in science and very frequently in business,
>we are at a loss about the meaning of some observation or
>puzzle, and we have to fall back on vague intuitions.
>
>The hardest part of science is *not* deduction from axioms,
>but the *discovery* of axioms that are suitable for precise
>deduction.  If all we had was logic, we would never be able
>to analyze and talk about the typically vague intuitions
>that lead to some of the greatest discoveries.  But if we
>didn't have the ability to do logic, we could never explore
>the consequences of those intuitions, and we'd be cheated
>in business by any shyster who could.
>
>Following are a couple of quotations:
>
>    "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
>    they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
>    they do not refer to reality."  Albert Einstein
>
>    "If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical
>    processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far
>    in our understanding of the physical world.  One might
>    as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely
>    by the use of the mathematics of probability."
>    Vannevar Bush
>
>We cannot understand language if we don't recognize that
>logic is part of every natural language.  But we cannot
>use logic effectively unless we recognize that our precise
>axioms were derived from some initially vague intuitions.
>
>John Sowa
>
> 
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
>To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
>Community Wiki:
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
>gWG
>
>
>  
>
Received on Sunday, 28 May 2006 08:14:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:40:59 UTC