atw: Re: Let's calm down, apologies, and other things

  • From: "Chris lofting" <lofting@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:51:43 +1100

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Geoffrey Marnell
> Sent: Sunday, 22 November 2009 8:27 PM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: Let's calm down, apologies, and other things
> 
> Chris, 
> 
> You strike me as a very intelligent person in search of a 
> sympathetic audience (read "forum"). 
> 
> I, for one, will never understand you. When I studied 
> ontology at Oxford University, it meant nothing like what 
> your web page tells me it means:
> ""Ontology : An ontology is similar to a dictionary or 
> glossary, but with greater detail and structure that enables 
> computers to process its content.
> An ontology consists of a set of concepts, axioms, and 
> relationships that describe a domain of interest." You just 
> won't find that in any mainstream philosophy textbook, old or 
> new: an ontological argument for the existence of god based 
> on a *dictionary or glossary*! I'd like to see that. We (that 
> is, old-fashioned philosophers with a penchant for 
> exactitude) use the same words as you; but we mean utterly 
> different things. That is not communication. That was the 
> problem with post-modernism: Alice in Wonderland 
> "ontologies". Let words mean what you like. Vale 
> post-modernism. The flowers are in the mail.
> 

tsk tsk - you naughty boy - taking something OUT of its context to then
complain! LOL!  The quotes come out of IEEE etc and the CONTEXT of IDM is
covered in the abstract which you seemed to have ignored:

"Through an analysis of the manner in which the brain appears to deriving
categories of meaning, an upper ontology is established by creation of an
abstract domain model usable to translate meanings across specialist domain
models, where such models are derived from recursion, and in so doing
highlighting the core methodology used in the brain for meaning derivation,
real or imagined. The focus of the work is on (a) identifying the general
methodology for meaning processing by humans and (b) introducing a basic
ground for meaning derivation/communication by AI systems. In the process of
identifying the general methodology in meaning derivation we identify a core
property of recursion that allows for the emergence of language and
consciousness."

The term "abstract domain model" is highlighted (italics) and covers the
movement into an UPPER ONTOLOGY.

For other viewers here is the FULL paragraph coverage on what you are
complaining about, especially note "IN INFORMATION SCIENCES..":

"In information science, an upper ontology (top-level ontology, or
foundation ontology) is an attempt to create an ontology which describes
very general concepts that are the same across all domains " from a detailed
text at Wikipedia

The IEEE group focused on such (http://suo.ieee.org/)  covers:

"Ontology : An ontology is similar to a dictionary or glossary, but with
greater detail and structure that enables computers to process its content.
An ontology consists of a set of concepts, axioms, and relationships that
describe a domain of interest.

Upper Ontology : An upper ontology is limited to concepts that are meta,
generic, abstract and philosophical, and therefore are general enough to
address (at a high level) a broad range of domain areas. Concepts specific
to given domains will not be included; however, this standard will provide a
structure and a set of general concepts upon which domain ontologies (e.g.
medical, financial, engineering, etc.) could be constructed."

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Formal_Ontology

To simplify things, an ontology is about IS-ness but its formal structure
will be made up of "a set of concepts, axioms, and relationships that
describe a domain of interest". Perhaps you 'old time philosophers' are
lacking in precision!? LOL!

> I suspect that very few, if any, practising technical writers 
> have a clue about, or are even interested in, ontology, IDM, 
> bosons, ying and yang, and the meaning of life as viewed 
> through any one of the various I Ching prisms.
> Perhaps, given the mission statement (forgive me, Don Watson) 
> of this forum, you should, in future, explicitly state how 
> your posting relates to the practices, tools, methodologies 
> and the like that technical writers care about. 

I have - in the posts to you and Ms Kent and Brian etc I have clearly stated
in each the application of the perspective to technical writing and the
identification of audiences and overall mindset - if you missed those
statements I suggest you go back and re-read it perhaps a little more
carefully.

Cordially,

Chris
http://www.emotionaliching.com


**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).

To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go 
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. austechwriter
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2009