Re: Topic :> Dynamics Of Ontologies

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Topic :> Dynamics Of Ontologies 18

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Example 1.  Prognostic Signs And Symptoms (cont.)

Back to the drawing board, the page whereon is retraced here:

o-----------------------------------------------------------o
|                                                           |
|                           Phenomenon                      |
|                                o                          |
|                                 >                         |
|                                  >                        |
|                                   >                       |
|                               Observation                 |
|                                     >                     |
|                                      >                    |
|                                       >                   |
|                                        >    Descriptive   |
|                            Induction    >   Data          |
|       Initial Model  3---------5-------->1  =             |
|                     ^                 < ^   Ideal         |
|                    ^               <   ^    Model         |
|                   ^             <     ^                   |
|                  ^           <       ^                    |
|      Deduction  ^     Abduction     ^  Deduction          |
|                ^       <           ^                      |
|               ^     <             ^                       |
|              ^   <               ^                        |
|             ^ <                 ^                         |
|   Initial  2---------4-------->o  Ideal                   |
|   Theory       Clarification      Theory                  |
|                                                           |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
Figure 3.  Dynamics of Inquiry

My initial theory (Node 2), taken at its words and not my intentions,
has failed to withstand the test of inductive comparison between its
model set (Node 3) and the initial data set (Node 1).  This time the
mismatch was obvious from the most cursory inspection, for instance,
in the fact that I never intended, nor saw in the data any reason,
to permit a model with all of the features in the initial lexicon:
{delirium, laughter, seriousness, less_dangerous, more_dangerous}.
Other times, a more careful assessment of the differences between
the proposed model set and the given data set may be necessary to
decide what kinds of changes will need to be contemplated in the
hopefully ongoing theory of the domain of phenomena in question.

It is with the examination of differences that one begins
to see the differential aspect of the dynamics of inquiry.
But further development of this theme must await its time.

For the moment we have more pressing business, and since
it's easy enough to see in this case what we have to do
to fix our current theory, let's just get right to that.

Node 4.  Improved Theory -- http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/gif00007.gif

o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| Node 4.  Improved Theory                                  |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
|                                                           |
|   ( delirium    (                                         |
|                                                           |
|   { laughter    ( less_dangerous ))                       |
|                                                           |
|   ( seriousness ( more_dangerous )) ))                    |
|                                                           |
|   ( laughter , seriousness )                              |
|                                                           |
|   ( less_dangerous , more_dangerous )                     |
|                                                           |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
|                                                           |
|   If delirium then:                                       |
|                                                           |
|   if laughter then less_dangerous;                        |
|                                                           |
|   if seriousness then more_dangerous.                     |
|                                                           |
|   Either laughter or seriousness, but not both.           |
|                                                           |
|   Either less_dangerous or more_dangerous, but not both.  |
|                                                           |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o

In this display, attaching to Node 4 of the inquiry diagram,
we have modified our theory to the extent of conjoining what
were undoubtedly the enthymemes among the initial premisses,
namely, the tacit assumptions that {laughter, seriousness}
and {less_dangerous, more_dangerous} are two dichotomies,
their features being exhaustive and mutually exclusive
with respect to the relevant universe of discourse.

Nota Bene.  In the parenthetical syntax employed above,
a bracket of the form "(x_1, x_2, ..., x_k)" says that
just one of the logical variables x_j, for j = 1 to k,
is false.  In particular, "(x_1, x_2)" says that just
one of the variables x_1, x_2 is false.  This is the
same as connecting x_1, x_2 by exclusive disjunction.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o