Monday, February 20, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
On the limits of the OWL standard à [184]
Reading material [1]
Reading material [2]
Reading material [3]
Summary of the discussion up to this point à [186]
Note from Dr Richard Ballard, Knowledge Foundations
Inc
Paul:
As I know you anticipated, I do take issue with the notion that relationships between RDMS and n-ary ontology are invertible in any real sense. There is nothing you can do to information (a' posteriori knowledge) to turn it into theory (a' priori knowledge). The n-ary ontology includes all of metaphysics (imagination), not just the subset of concepts with observable properties.
Both formalisms can represent information and one (e.g. RDMS) cannot even represent any n-ary without quadratic index complexity costs. My position is that UML was designed to never let you instance relationships so your models would never let you propose models that see those costs.
I also take the position that the gap between a theory of information and a theory of knowledge cannot be bridged both ways by logic + a theory of information.
Dick