SUO: RE: RE: ontology as science
Dear Bill,
I agree with you.
I have actually suggested a couple of times that the important thing
we need to do is establish a process, rather than define a deliverable,
but it often takes several attempts to make a point.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burkett, Bill [mailto:WBurkett@modulant.com]
> Sent: 19 June 2003 22:25
> To: sowa@bestweb.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: RE: ontology as science
>
>
>
> John:
>
> Okay. I agree that lexicographers can treat language use as
> data and be as objective about its data analysis as any other
> scientist. I'll also accept that lexicographers can account
> for and predict semantic drift. But what are the
> ramifications of this on ontology design or engineering?
> (Specifically of the SUO.) This raises a methodological
> characteristic of ontology development that hasn't been (or I
> haven't seen) discussed in the SUO group yet. My perception
> has been that the sole goal as be the development of discrete
> ontologies with mappings/relationships between them and -
> perhaps if we're lucky - an "upper" ontology that relates all
> the others. Yet this characteristic/feature - semantic drift
> - requires some method be included with the SUO to govern its
> evolution over time in response to changing requirements.
> (Likewise, some method is needed to account for language and
> contextual differences.) Perhaps we are not yet at a stage
> to discuss these, but I haven't!
> seen even a suggestion that such work is planned. (I'll
> again admit that I haven't followed ALL of the SUO
> discussions in detail, so I might have missed such a reference. :-)
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Thu 6/19/2003 11:11 AM
> To: Burkett, Bill; sowa@bestweb.net; John F. Sowa;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: ontology as science
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> I believe that the following point contains the crux of
> the misunderstanding:
>
> WB> However, #2 and #3 will always be subjective and therefore
> > of questionable testability from a scientific perspective.
>
> Yes, the way people use words depends on their subjective
> inclinations. But other people can study the data about
> how people use words in a purely objective way.
>
> For example, the behavior of any species, from bacteria to
> cats to monkeys, can be studied in purely objective ways,
> even though that behavior is based on those organisms' internal
> (i.e., subjective) processes.
>
> As an outside observer, a lexicographer can be just as
> objective as any other scientist, and the results are every
> bit as objectively testable and repeatable as the results
> of any other science.
>
> In fact, linguists can reconstruct ancient languages, such
> as Egyptian hieroglyphics, from purely objective data without
> ever meeting or talking with an ancient Egyptian. And the
> reconstructions can be and have been independently verified
> by other linguists.
>
> WB> With respect to semantics, however, it [lexicography]
> > cannot take into account the semantic drift of words in a
> > language as a language evolves over time. Nor can it take
> > into account different languages except as a distinct data
> > sets.
>
> What??? Lexicographers analyze semantic drift in exactly
> the same way that geologists analyze continental drift.
> They can even make predictions about which kinds of terms
> are most likely to drift and which kinds tend to be stable.
>
> For example, value judgments, such as "good", "bad", or
> "beautiful" tend to drift most rapidly, while references to
> physical objects tend to be preserved over much longer
> periods. The Indoeuropean word for salmon (lachs) is still
> common in modern languages, as are the words for mother,
> father, sister, brother, beech tree, etc. Since there were
> no salmon in India, the word "lachs" was transferred to the
> the color from which we have the English "lacquer". And the
> Indoeuropean word "sneg" from which we get English "snow"
> was transferred to a word for "slippery" in India.
>
> The German word for "good" (gut) is cognate with the English,
> but bad (boese) and beautiful (schoen) are not. And the Latin
> "bonus", "malus", and "pulcher" have no relation to the
> Germanic terms, the Greek terms, the Slavic terms, or the
> Sanskrit terms. Even "pulcher" was replaced by "bellus"
> in modern Romance languages.
>
> The words for abstractions, such as legal and sacred terms,
> have also been preserved for thousands of years (including
> the words "legal" and "sacred", which are derived from
> Indoeuropean roots of similar meanings).
>
> All of this is objectively testable and repeatable by
> independent observers.
>
> John
>
>
>
>