Cory, (01)
I accept you were not suggesting an exclusive choice for the 'concept'
option. (02)
However, I think you are putting your finger on a key issue (already
discussed in this list). (03)
This is that, from an efficiency/effectiveness view it seems, on the one
hand, to be a lot of effort to record the different (metaphysical) choices
and their impact on the ontology, when each of the choices for each option
seems to give you sufficiently similar 'functionality'. But, on the other
hand, (especially in this type of forum) how do you get the group to agree
to even a single choice? (04)
Your suggestion ", it is a choice, and as
> such a valid "concept about concept" that we can record in our ontology"
implies the record them all option. (05)
There is the additional (interesting research) question that 'recording them
all' raises - which is how the choices interact - for example why 4D and
extensionalism seem to go well together. These would need to be resolved to
some extent if we took on the 'record them all option'. I suspect the
problem is too difficult for anyone to resolve (easily) now. (06)
Regards,
Chris (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: 22 January 2006 19:56
> To: 'ONTAC-WG General Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Intension and Extension (Was RE: [ontac-forum] Type vs.
> Class-lastchance to vote. )
>
> Re CBC> * A concept for a kind/classification/type of things - rabbit
>
> I am assuming from what you say that 'concepts' are in our mind - and that
> this is the mechanism we use to deal with general things. This is a key
> metaphysical choice with architectural consequences - the problem is that
> it
> is not the only or the obvious choice.
>
> [CBC] I was not suggesting it is the only choice, it is a choice, and as
> such a valid "concept about concept" that we can record in our ontology
> and
> have terms for. There seems to be a need to define an all encompassing
> "correct" set of concepts rather than figure out how various concepts
> relate.
>
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: 'ONTAC-WG General Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Intension and Extension (Was RE: [ontac-forum] Type vs. Class
> -lastchance to vote. )
>
> Cory,
>
> John's note seems to me not to cover a key ontological point with respect
> to
> intension and extension. This relates to identity.
>
> John said:
> > 1. The fundamental distinction which many of us have
> > emphasized for years is between _intension_ and
> > _extension_. To avoid prejudging the choice of
> > technical terms, I'll use the example of Rabbit vs.
> > Peter or Thumper. The intension of 'Rabbit' is
> > determined by some definition that is independent of
> > any actual rabbits, real or fictional. The extension
> > of "Rabbit" at a particular point in time consists
> > of all the rabbits that happen to exist at that time.
>
> It may help (in the long run) to get his on the table.
>
> My perspective is that there are several metaphysical choices that have an
> architectural impact on the ontology - and this is one of them.
>
> The issue is whether the identity of intentional types/instances is
> determined by their definition (rather than their extension). So if two
> types have different definitions, they have different intensions and so
> they
> are then different types.
>
> The classical example is, I believe, equiangular triangles and equilateral
> triangles - the first defined in terms of angles the second in term of
> sides. Are these two types or one? One can prove mathematically that they
> have the same extension.
>
> One can have fun coming up with different definitions of the kinds of
> everyday entities that appear in government systems. Are these then
> different types/classes? If so, it seems to me one introduces problems in
> interoperability.
>
> However, I suspect some people would prefer to take the intensional route
> (Barry, for example - and I believe he is right to say the issue should be
> discussed - it will not go away because it is ignored).
>
> I realise some people want to avoid this kind of abstract discussion, and
> do
> REAL work. However, these choices affect the eventual ontology - and so it
> makes sense to explicitly document the choice that is made. Unfortunately
> this often means there has to be some discussion of the choice.
>
> As a methodology, I prefer getting together enough relevant material in a
> reasonable order before these metaphysical discussions are entered into.
> One
> then has something more concrete to test them with. So, my preferred route
> would be to postpone the discussion until we have the material. But my
> experience is that it does not make sense to ignore the architectural
> decisions.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> PS. A small point.
>
> CBC> * A concept for a kind/classification/type of things - rabbit
>
> I am assuming from what you say that 'concepts' are in our mind - and that
> this is the mechanism we use to deal with general things. This is a key
> metaphysical choice with architectural consequences - the problem is that
> it
> is not the only or the obvious choice.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> > Sent: 22 January 2006 18:35
> > To: 'ONTAC-WG General Discussion'
> > Subject: Intension and Extension (Was RE: [ontac-forum] Type vs. Class -
> > lastchance to vote. )
> >
> > Berry,
> > re:
> > >If 'rabbit' refers to a type, and if rabbit instances existed before
> > >human beings, and if rabbits were able to recognize other instances
> > >of like type (e.g. for dating purposes) then the type rabbit existed
> > >before any definition was formulated. Talk of types should thus not
> > >rely too much on talk of definitions/intensions. Indeed there are
> > >many types in biomedicine for which definitions have not yet been
> > >supplied, and many types in all domains for which incorrect
> > >definitions have been (or were for many centuries) supplied.
> >
> > [[CBC] ] While a bunch of furry creatures may have existed long ago, the
> > concept of how these individuals are related is not part of the natural
> > world. That we may decide that a set of individuals is sufficiently
> "more
> > similar" such that we classify them under a common term and concept it
> is
> > a
> > tool WE use that is a basis for how WE think and how WE communicate.
> > Certainly the first classification, one common to living things is
> "food",
> > to a lion the distinction between "food" and "rabbit" may not even
exist.
> > Some pre-human may have had a thought or grunt for "Rabbit food", and
> thus
> > was born the CONCEPT.
> > When we communicate such concepts we may do so by example (see, the
> things
> > in this box are the "rabbit" I was talking about) or by definition.
> Both
> > are ways to communicate and clarify the concept that we have in OUR
> MINDS
> > or
> > OUR logical formalisms. Classification by example appears to be how we
> > learn, but isn't this discipline about being a bit more precise?
> > So it would seem to me there are 5 things in play;
> > * An actual thing - jumping across my lawn
> > * A concept for a kind/classification/type of things - rabbit
> > * A definition for the concept - Small mammal, etc.
> > * Sets of things - creatures in a box
> > * A set of individuals satisfying a concept - "extent".
> > * Terms for the concept - EN:"Rabbit", FR:"Lapin"
> >
> > A concept <HAS> terms, definitions, sets and <AN> extent.
> >
> > What was proposed but seem invalid is that we can always deduce
> > equivalence
> > of concepts by equivalence of individuals. This would not work where
> > there
> > is more than one possible aspect of the same individual or where there
> is
> > change. Perhaps there is a special kind of type where this kind of
> > assumption can be made. This special kind of type would have to have
> > individuals completely defined by a single definition and thus not
> > correspond to an individual in the real world. One example of such
> types
> > is
> > the enumerated types found in programming languages. "Color" may be an
> > example of such a type, but I am not sure yet. I am mostly sure
> "Rabbit"
> > is
> > NOT one of those types. So the more general concept is the type that
> does
> > not contain this assumption.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> > To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> > http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> > Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> > Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-
> > bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (09)
|