[Humanist] 30.509 ontology to ontologies
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sat Nov 19 07:25:00 CET 2016
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 30, No. 509.
Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:55:45 -0500
From: Murray Bent <murraybent at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 30.486 ontology to ontologies?
In-Reply-To: <20161112094806.CA1F38216 at digitalhumanities.org>
Big Enterprise applications such as car design, plane manufacturing and
defense acquisition saw the collision of multiple ontologies in the late
This is refered to in the history of STEP
discussing the The Interim Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES).
"CAD systems were less than ten years old, and there were only a handful of
products with any significant market penetration. Even at this early stage,
users were overwhelmed by the inability to share data among these tools and
with their own internally-developed databases. In September 1979,
frustration came to a head at the two-day Air Force ICAM Industry Days
Meeting. On the first day, a representative from General Electric (GE)
challenged a panel of CAD vendors, which included ComputerVision, Applicon,
and Gerber, in essence, to stop blocking progress and work together to
enable an exchange mechanism. "
The standardization of lower level exchange ( IDEF0, IDEF1 ..) allowed the
development of enterprise ontologies in IDEF5 in the 1980s, by NASA
Johnson, UTexas, DoD etc
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 30, No. 486.
> Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
> Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 09:07:59 +0000
> From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
> Subject: ontology to ontologies
> I'm looking within the long moment of transition from 'ontology' to
> 'ontologies' for it to be noticed and discussed within computer science
> & engineering -- or for a suitable retrospective account. It's clear from
> articles by Stephen Michael Kosslyn ("On the ontological status of
> visual mental images", 1978), Arne Sølvberg ("Software requirement
> definition and data models", 1979) and John McCarthy ("Circumscription:
> A form of non-monotonic reasoning", 1980) that by then the singular noun
> was crossing from philosophy into computer science. People in the trade
> will know that Thomas Gruber defined the term for computer science in
> 1993 and 1995. McCarthy, for one, was familiar with the work of the
> philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine, who wrote "On what there is" (1948)
> and "On ontologies" (1949). But as far as I can tell philosophers were
> not and are not interested in what happened to the word in computer
> science. Too bad.
> The big problem I am considering is the relation between the digital
> modelling machine, which in effect demands pluralisation of 'ontology',
> and the widespread, in some places very deep, attention to different
> ways of thinking and being in the world, or to put the matter another
> way, the great difficulty of positing cognitive universals. Alan
> Turing's invention of a 'universal' machine became a step in this
> direction. But as a good friend said to me awhile ago, there's a great
> difference between a few dozen people talking about something and tens
> of thousands of people talking about it.
> Any clues? Discussion?
> Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital
> Humanities, King's College London; Adjunct Professor, Western Sydney
More information about the Humanist