And, particularly, I think that in this specific situation the author (Guarino) tried to fit both requirements. He provide several examples that help in undersatanding the presented notions. I have previously understood the intuitive notions underlying the exposition. 

My troubles were related only to the mathematical formalization. And this occurred because I wanted to go into details (I hate to be defeated by math). But, with the aditional references to the notions of powerset and "n-th Cartesian power of a set", the formalization became clear.

I would like to thank all participants.

Best regards.

2013年1月3日 matthew lange <mclange@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Why does it have to be
John: "Teaching ontology by burying the fundamental insights under the trivial notation is pedagogical malpractice."
or
Leo: "The point of using mathematical (or logical) notation is to make your statement precise and unambiguous."

Cannot these perspectives be harmonized?:
Fundamental principles can be explained in plain language, with formalized notation provided for those trained in higher mathematics.

FWIW, I am a life scientist with several years of data/knowledge architecture experience. I cringe at the formalist notation--able to understand it with my old math books next to me--but view that largely as a waste of time if the concept is well explained. If authors only care about talking to other mathematicians/logicians then this notation is good. If they want to reach a larger audience who can leverage their teachings...

~mc


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J