On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:15:25PM -0500, Charles D Turnitsa wrote:
> Somebody responded to Cory's question "do ontologies change over time",
> with the answer "no". I believe that this is incorrect. (01)
Not for the definition of "ontology" I gave. (02)
> As an example consider:
>
> An ontology (describing the entities and relations) defining the laws of
> physical science in 1800
> An ontology (describing the entities and relations) defining the laws of
> physical science in 2000
>
> The ontology is concerned with the same domain (laws of physical science),
> yet the general understanding of that domain by those working within it has
> changed dramatically. And this is over only 200 years. (03)
Well, even apart from the account I provided, it sure seems to me that
the simplest way to characterize your example is in terms of two
ontologies -- one expressing the physics of 1800 and one expressing the
physics of 2000. (Of course, no one ever really explicitly *formulated*
an ontology of physics in 1800, but never mind :-) Your preference is
that there be one single underlying thing -- The Ontology of Physics --
that has simply morphed and grown over time, but I think you'll be very
hard pressed to say what that thing is in clear and useful terms. The
account I provided is clear and precise: Change, eliminate, or add one
sentence to an ontology and you get a different ontology. There is no
one underlying thing that changes. What we have instead of change of
one ontology over time is a series of similar (ideally, ever more
refined) but distinct, unchanging ontologies. (04)
Chris Menzel (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (06)
|