Vocabulary: Ontology

[Bernard Vatant]

Hi Matthew
> I've been thinking about this lately and I believe that one of the 
> reasons that astronomy is behind other sciences in this field is that 
> we are actually taxonomically challenged. In spite of our extensive 
> history, we do not have the depth or rigidity of classification that, 
> for example, biology, chemistry or crystallography has. This means 
> that our definitions are fuzzier and actually more akin to arts 
> semantics (e.g. book genres) than science. Maybe we should be looking 
> more at what's happening in these fields than those where there are 
> families, species and subspecies.
Well, grass is always greener on the other bank of the river. All 
sciences have to constantly challenge and review their classification 
schemes (ontologies if you like) in order to move forward. Since you 
quote biology, things can be as "fuzzy" there as in astronomy. See e.g., 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
with this quotation at the end, among others:
" The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to 
agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the 
word 'species' "

Rings a bell?

-- 

*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
----------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
----------------------------------------------------
Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant at mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant at mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>