[BS]
>As I have argued at length, e.g. in (01)
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Beyond_Concepts.pdf (02)
the muddle surrounding the misuse of the term "concept" has created havoc
and waste in some of the most well-funded ontological endeavors thus far
(which are in the area of biomedicine, and centrally in what
is called the Unified Medical Language System).
> (03)
Good article, Barry. Sincere congratulations! Still many zombyfied with this
trivial 'definition': 'a specification of a conceptualization', confusedly
ramified as:
'a theory of content', 'a system of concepts/vocabulary', 'a set of
agreements about a set of concepts', 'the representation of the semantics of
terms and their relationships', 'the class hierarchy in object-oriented
paradigm', 'a complete schema of the domain concepts', 'an
entity-relationship schema with subsumption relations between concepts',
'conceptual patterns', 'concept heterarchies or hierarchies', 'a body of
onceptualizations', 'schemata', or 'metadata scheme', 'a common set of
terms', 'a controlled vocabulary of terms', 'a representation vocabulary',
and what not.
Instead of just saying: Ontology is about Reality [the Universal Class of
all kinds of things]. (04)
Azamat (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:58 AM
Subject: [ontac-forum] Muddle surrounding misuse of 'concept' (06)
>
>> >From a use-case point of view, it is not really interesting if the
>> >"concept"
>>of rabbit existed before man, what is interesting is our success at
>>communicating information and that requires sharing concepts. To do so
>>requires agreement on the concept and that implies some mechanism of
>>identifying a concept and specification of that concept (even a weak form
>>of
>>specification such as examples).
>>And to come back home - "class" and "type" are just terms, not the
>>concept.
>
> As I have argued at length, e.g. in
>
> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Beyond_Concepts.pdf
>
> the muddle surrounding the misuse of the term "concept" has created havoc
> and waste in some of the most well-funded ontological endeavors thus far
> (which are in the area of biomedicine, and centrally in what is called the
> Unified Medical Language System). I invite Cory to look at these
> arguments, to see why his proposed solution is not good enough even from a
> 'use-case point of view'.
> BS
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
>>Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 3:23 PM
>>To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
>>Subject: Re: Intension and Extension (Was RE: [ontac-forum] Type
>>vs.Class -
>>last chance to vote. )
>>
>>At 07:35 PM 1/22/2006, you wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>>Bravo, Cory, you have recognized that there were no concepts before
>>concept-using animals like ourselves came upon the scene.
>>Technically, this is called "the gem".
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>Indeed.
>>
>> >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"
>>
>>Can you give me an account of how rabbits recognize other rabbits,
>>for mating purposes, when they only have the above to work with. (In
>>practice, of course, they only have the first, and perhaps also the
>>fourth.)
>>
>> >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.
>>
>>Biologists are not investigating concepts.
>>They are investigating reality. They discover that this reality
>>contains natural kinds, and their instances. Many of these natural
>>kinds, and their instances, existed many billions of years before
>>concept-using animals came on the scene.
>>BS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________________
>> >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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|