[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: Syntax + object model

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Syntax + object model
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 17:15:17 -0400
• References: <r01050400-1026-679416B08E2411D7AA160003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> jonathan@o... (Jonathan Borden) writes:
> >You might find "ontologies" to be about this, but perhaps that is
> >because you are looking at "ontologies" with a limited viewpoint.
> >Granted there are project to build a standardized ontology of the
> >universe e.g. Cyc and SUO, but those particular projects are *hardly*
> >all that ontologies in general are about.
>
> I said I find "making claims of certainty about the universe [to be] a
> project I find unfortunate".  That definitely puts the rhetoric around
> Cyc in the discard bin, but it seems more like a recognition of the
> limits of our understandings than a limited viewpoint in and of itself.

What I am saying is that you are not making -- what I consider -- a fair or
valid statement about ontologies *in general* as opposed to the above two
projects.

...
>
> If you want to spend your time developing ontologies in the privacy of
> your own house, you're quite welcome to do so.  If people come on
> xml-dev and make claims that, for instance, ontologies are the right
> answer to vocabulary development for XML, they should not be surprised
> to encounter resistance from people who have other approaches.
>

For what I consider a significant class of problems, ontologies *are* the
right answer for vocabulary development for XML. (e.g., see:
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn) When you write about
"ontologists" coming 'round xml-dev, I wonder who you are talking about? I
don't consider myself an "ontologist" though I'm involved with ontologies --
I don't know of any real ontologists who post regularly on xml-dev, though
perhaps there are a few who read it.

> Mathematicians and ontologists both frequently fetishize logic and think
> they're tapping into something grander than the rest of us can see.  To
> the extent that such projects can avoid that and remain focused on the
> practical, I'm thrilled.  I don't share their faith in logic or the
> excitement I see for pinning knowledge on virtual index cards.

I assume you are reading this on a computer, and so I find myself bemused at
your lack of enthusiasm. All practical computer projects in some sense are
based upon logic.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Syntax + object model
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Syntax + object model
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: Syntax + object model
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Syntax + object model
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Syntax + object model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread