[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes:
>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.
I disagree, but since you cut my discussion of specific ontologies,
there isn't much further to say. Hang out at knowledge tech conferences
and listen, and you'll find plenty of rhetorical overreach. I'll be the
jerk reading Feyerabend in the corner.
>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)
Sure, for word searches, that's great. If I just want to mark up a
document or an invoice, I'm not nearly as excited about that vision.
>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.
I suspect 'real' ontologists have better things to do. Still, about
once a month, we get people here who talk about RDF as the right way to
do vocabularies. Roger Costello's recent piece on OWL was fairly
memorable, and it's been a popular trend lately. Maybe it's just the
latest version of RDF condescension toward XML?
>> 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.
Sure. But I have a life beyond computers, and recognize that computers
are really lousy at dealing with a lot of the things humans do very
well. I'd never argue with a mathematician about the internal logic of
his theorems, but that doesn't stop me from arguing with them about
politics. Logic isn't everything. Remember, for instance, that
"rationalizing" gets at least as much use as a euphemism as it does for
its original positive meaning.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
