I am speaking to biases created by definitional boundaries. I might add that it parallels your admonition for others to define their terms in a recent posting. If I might paraphrase: "Natural", "occuring" and "conflicts" impose different inferences (sanctioned) depending on the definitions used. James Ellis Godard <egodard@csun.edu> wrote: That seems wrong, or inverted, from the first sentence: Ontological commitments may be opinionated, conventionalized, fashionable, or stylized. But opinion, convention, fashion, and style could as easily be epistegmological, theoretical, methodological, or practical as ontological. -eg
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l- bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of James Whyte Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 7:33 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet"
In my opinion, conventions, fashion or styles are ontological commitments and carry with them sanctioned inferences. Just as social norms are products of committed reasoning. The premise, as originally stated, is that if you define the Internet narrowly (my form 1) social domains are not considered. The second form, less narrow, opens consideration to more options. Form 1 is a pronoun; form 2 is a common noun. I don't stand alone in this view. It is suggested in Davis, Shrobe and Szolovits AI Magazine, 14(1):17-33 as inference and is also supported by Sapir, Wharf and others in linguistics. I can provide a larger bibliography if your intent is not pugnacious. On the other hand Google Scholar produces thousands of parallel offerings. The richest sources come from discourse on Knowledge Representation (KR).
To get there one has to take a trans-disciplinary view ; which allows one to easily move across the boundaries.
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote: all I'm requesting is that you provide some evidence that the ontological commitments that you assert exist and are not commitments based on convention, possibly as style or fashion. either you can, or you can't. if you can't, then your assertions are merely your own, perfectly fine for what they are, but not really capable of sustaining a broader position. On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:56 PM, James Whyte wrote:
Very weak!
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.