SUO: Re: What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
PG: Maybe I just have troubles with English.
Join the club. Then again, it could be something in the Attic.
PG: What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies ...
JA: This is what the kids call a no-brainer.
JA: The motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies, parsing "ontos + logos"
as "stories about being", is that there "are" a multiplicity of ontologies in
the world today ...
PG: Do you mean that because Cycorp has developed an ontology, Teknowlöedge
has developed an ontology and John Sowa has written a book and maintain
a website about his ontology, we need such multiplicity of ontologies?
So we need X because there is X? What the hell, man, do you have more
things like that to say?
Already in this conversation there are so many meanings for the word "ontology"
that I hardly know which one to focus on first. I tried to use the etymology,
or folk etymology, as a guide, but of course "use" will do as use usually does
and ignore all prior usages. There is the formal sense of "ontology", meaning
a fixed "something or other order theory" (SO^3T) -- if that is what suits you,
then fine. There are the cultural and disciplinary senses, the sorts of things
that it is difficult to reflect on well enough to write down in books or mark up
@ bloci, and there it seems like we have to acknowledge that what an agent, author,
company, community, or civilization can formalize of what it takes for "granted" is
likely to be a partial, and most likely "partial" sample of what it thinks it knows.
So take your pick. Heck, I'm easy.
For my pick, I am interested in knowledge bases that have
critical reflective knowledge in them, and knowledge base
tools that can contribute to research on problems that
really bug the rest of the world, outside this circle.
One of the best ways to get knowledge in a knowledge
base is to get the people who are doing the most work
to dig that knowledge to use the system being built.
Again, I think that anybody who looks up and looks
around at how research and reflection really work
would find these delusions of 1-lithicness to be
utterly not-so-well-founded. There is no living
field of research I can think of where there are
not multiple competing theories at all times.
And if we want to support those developments
we have no choice but to ack the fact of it.
PG: Or do you mean something like you and I do not see the same thing
in the world therefore we need an Awbrey and a Grenon ontology?
PG: My question was directed toward Jay's remark questioning
my blattering about relativist tendencies in this list.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
Yes, you're relatively right there.
I learned all this stuff in my
freshperson physics class.
Jon Awbrey
JA: ... and anybody who looks around knows that, and anybody who cares
about "what is" needs to start from that -- which is where we are --
and anybody who ignores that is just not a part of the conversation
yet, the part of the conversation that is making a contribution to
what we call "knowledge".
JA: Now get used to it.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o