SUO: RE: ontology as science
Thanks Jon, I would like to see any material capable
of simplifying context, scope or other similar
structuring.
Since you're still writing your dissertation, that
probably means you're looking at things from a very
theoretical viewpoint. I know I did, and I kept it
for several years after my dissertation was completed.
It would be helpful if you wrote, for each paragraph
of theoretical work, a subsequent paragraph explaining
the same thing in conversational mode.
Any such contribution is appreciated.
Thanks,
Rich
Jon Awbrey wrote:
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Rich,
>
> There's a part of my onoing dissertation draft
> that is designed to handle this sort of issue.
> It's a bit too repetitively written because I
> actually came at what is pretty much the same
> structure from 3 different directions without
> noticing the convergence until the last moment.
> We followers of Peirce, of course, have no ideas
> that we can call our own, and this one is really
> just another variation on dominant Peircean themes,
> in particular, the idea that sign relations are the
> adequate, necessary, and sufficient contexts for all
> practical accounts of semiotic processes, including
> as special cases: computation, dialogue, inference,
> information, inquiry, logic, reasoning, and thought.
>
> I will maybe see about putting some excerpts on the Ontology List,
> if I can stand to do that without having to re-write the whole mess.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Richard Cooper wrote:
> >
> > John F. Sowa wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Cyc supports contextual differences with microtheories, and
> > > we need a similar modular mechanism in any proposed SUO.
> > >
> > > John Sowa
> >
> > I've read the Cyc stuff about microtheories, but it isn't
> > exactly a piece of tutorial elegance. IOW I don't understand
> > the motivation behind it, the broad points of implementation,
> > or the alternative choices that could have been made instead.
> >
> > Certainly context is specific to a conversation, or a problem
> > to be solved, or a lesson to be taught. But isn't context
> > also decomposed into other (sub)contexts pretty much like
> > OOD handles scopes? The present OOD methodologies don't deal
> > well with scopes, using the dot notation to reach any object
> > from any other object. This isn't a very good solution
> > because many separately designed units have to have access
> > to nearly all the other units in a large program. Polymorphism
> > is a start at improvement, but only just barely.
> >
> > It would be nice if there were a more formal way to represent
> > contexts, nestings, decompositions, and so forth.
> >
> > In XML, the namespaces are no better than in OOD. I know of
> > no existing solution to this problem, but it lies at the heart
> > of the exponential nature of software testing and debugging.
> > A change in one unit can cause zillions of changes in other
> > units because references from the other units are not very
> > transparent to the design of the changing unit.
> >
> > Does anyone have a better solution they're willing to share?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rich
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>