Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
An idle (but perhaps relevant) question: Doesn't the ability to establish ontologies require that all ontological transforms act upon data that has identical atomicity? In case I didn't state that properly, let's take for example the portmanteau word 'chortle', which is a combination of 'snort' and 'chuckle'. In one sentence they may be separate ontological constructs: "He snorted as he chuckled." One could map the sentence fragment 'snorted as he chuckled' to 'chortled'. However, there are myriad similiar fragments to map: "He snortingly chuckled." "He had outbreaks of snorting between his chuckles." "He chuckled in a snorting fashion." All of these of course mean, "He chortled." It's a frivolous example, but the point is a serious one: domains often normalize data according to their needs or custom. For languages without a Lewis Caroll, snorting a chuckling may remain forever separate. In some domains, an address may be three fields, others five. I guess what I'm asking: Is there really a way to come up with a general ontological scheme that doesn't resort to rules that involve sophisticated and arbitrary syntax analysis or pre-ontological normalization of data across target domains? (And I know Len's going send me links to incredibly dense philosophical treatises, but I guess that's the price I pay for being curious.)
|
