minimal encoding bias, vs ontological commitment

Elsewhere, ( INCOSE Systems Science WG) some of us are discussing different
approaches to how to best develop a 'systems' ontology

(related diagrams here
http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/browse_thread/thread/448e3a5dbc6cd99?hl=en
)

It is suggested that  some issues  may be of interest to some members of
this public list :-)

PDM




Date: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Subject: ontology - natural systems
From: PDM
To: syssciwg@googlegroups.com


Ralph

>
> The book also has a website -http://workingontologist.org/
>

Thank you, I am familiar with the excellent resource

But I must admit, I do not understand what you are trying to say
You mention 'ontological commitment' Principle 5  while I talking about
'minimal encoding bias' Principle 4:



4.  Minimal encoding bias: The conceptualization should be specified at the
knowledge level without depending on a particular symbol-level encoding.
 An
encoding bias results when a representation choices are made purely for the
convenience of notation or implementation. Encoding bias should be
minimized,
because knowledge-sharing agents may be implemented in different
representation
systems and styles of representation

FROM

http://tomgruber.org/writing/onto-design.pdf

>
> Until then I will have no further motivation to respond to posts from you
such as this one.

That's  a  relief   :-), thank you


PDM
>



>
>
>    Ralph Hodgson <ralphtq@gmail.com> Nov 26 09:42AM -0500
>
>    I take you to be a pragmatic person, you should read this book -
>    http://www.amazon.com/Semantic-Web-Working-Ontologist-Effective/dp/0123735564
>
>    The book also has a website - http://workingontologist.org/
>
>    After reading this book, and understanding what it means to make
>    ontological commitments (what can be inferred by an assertion), we can know
>    how informed you are. We can ask you the model-theoretic basis on which you
>    base your disposition to advocacy for UML (with its imprecise semantics as
>    an information modeling language) as opposed to inquiry over what it means
>    to be modeling in OWL using an formalism with a well-grounded type system.
>
>    [...]
>
>    Ralph Hodgson
>    @ralphtq
>
>
>
>
>