A diversion into the pedantic, but hear me out: I'm legitimately interested in terminology here.
This actually seems more like ontology work than epistemology work. In one of my academic fields (I do software, education, and the learning sciences), we tend to use the term "epistemology" to be knowledge about knowledge itself. Generally questions like "where does the ontology of pizza come from?", or "who has claim on saying what is and is not a pizza, and where do they derive that claim?" are epistemological ones, and mapping out the state of different claims are ontological ones.
Is 'epistemology', as used here to mean more of a meta-ontology a common word usement that's being structured these days? Is it something from clojure or one of the other lisp-y spaces people are building ontologies? I played with building ontologies about epistemology (specifically, nature of science, quality of scientific claim, etc) using KQML back in the Dark Ages of 2000 or so, but haven't really looked at the work since then.
I am using the term "ontology" to mean "a description of truth", and "epistemology" to mean "how do we know what truth is". Of course, these are philosophical definitions, which (as the article says) are not necessarily that applicable.
The article in question uses OWL -- which is a subset of first order logic -- to illustrate the point. Clojure is (in this article) just a syntactic wrapping.
As a barese, I cannot let it go: here in Bari there is a total separation between pizza and focaccia. I know in other parts of Italy the difference is smoothered, but
A pizza is only made in pizzeria, is baked directly into the wood stove, over the marble
A focaccia is only made in panificio, is baked into a baking tray
Btw a focaccia barese is a total specific thing (always with oil, olive, and tomato pieces) it was a shock to know this thing does not exist outiside my city
This is the big issue with 'defining' pizza and many other Italian dishes - Italians themselves can't decide how it should be and love to debate these things over and over (usually while eating food)!
Carbonara is another highly debated dish - here in Roma (where it is was supposedly born ~50 years ago) some people insist you only need egg, where as others insist you need egg and cheese (and then there is the debate over what cheese). I've heard some restaurants stopped serving the dish to prevent heated arguments with their customers.
Even the word for bags in a supermarket can't be agreed on. Here we use "buste", where as in the north they use "sacchetto". Our word there means envelope, so obviously you will get a funny look if you ask for three envelopes when paying for your groceries (the joke is on us though, we use that word for envelope too :P).
focaccia genovese is also a totally different thing.
"Focaccia" in general is underspecified.
FWIW, "pizza bianca" is also underspecified, as in many parts of center italy, it might refer to pizza baked from bread makers using the same dough ad the bread rather than pizza dough, just flattened.
It is a mistake to seek universality when dealing with semantics and ontologies. The world is perceived and understood differently by every witness.
The solution is to allow every agent to either support or disapprove of every semantic statement. This way, the same query will output different realities depending on the agent's opinions, preferences, and network of trust.
Imagine a knowledge base where Jesus statistically both exists and doesn't exists, depending on who wants to know. A knowledge base where some food item is both a pizza and not a pizza. There's no way around it, and this will become the start of a new semantic marketplace.
I wrote a different version of the pizza ontology years ago, where the level of "spiciness" was dependent on the country you came from -- so American "hot" was equivalent to British "Medium".
It's hard to do, ontologically, but you can. It tends to make your ontology very complex though, and at the same time incapable (because it's hard to detect contradictions). So you should only do it when you need to.
To complicate things further, different parts of Italy call different things focaccia, and there are also many kinds of pizza. But generally speaking it's true: a focaccia is thicker and usually contains more olive oil. This requirement might be reflected in a slightly different mixture.
To complicate the matter, if you ever find yourself in the Italian region of Apulia (and possibly other southern regions), you should say "focaccia" even though you really mean "pizza", because "pizza" stands for "penis".
In fact Rome is not the right place to understand what is pizza. You should go Naples. Keep in mind that Italy is made of a lot, really a lot of cultures. It is not the same to stay in Naples than in Rome. Naples was a Greek colony, Rome was an Etruscan colony.
If you are in Rome you can understand what is carbonara, matriciana, abbacchio, etc. If you ask for a pizza you are astray.
pfooti|9 years ago
This actually seems more like ontology work than epistemology work. In one of my academic fields (I do software, education, and the learning sciences), we tend to use the term "epistemology" to be knowledge about knowledge itself. Generally questions like "where does the ontology of pizza come from?", or "who has claim on saying what is and is not a pizza, and where do they derive that claim?" are epistemological ones, and mapping out the state of different claims are ontological ones.
Is 'epistemology', as used here to mean more of a meta-ontology a common word usement that's being structured these days? Is it something from clojure or one of the other lisp-y spaces people are building ontologies? I played with building ontologies about epistemology (specifically, nature of science, quality of scientific claim, etc) using KQML back in the Dark Ages of 2000 or so, but haven't really looked at the work since then.
phillord2|9 years ago
The article in question uses OWL -- which is a subset of first order logic -- to illustrate the point. Clojure is (in this article) just a syntactic wrapping.
_ZeD_|9 years ago
A pizza is only made in pizzeria, is baked directly into the wood stove, over the marble
A focaccia is only made in panificio, is baked into a baking tray
Btw a focaccia barese is a total specific thing (always with oil, olive, and tomato pieces) it was a shock to know this thing does not exist outiside my city
lucaspiller|9 years ago
Carbonara is another highly debated dish - here in Roma (where it is was supposedly born ~50 years ago) some people insist you only need egg, where as others insist you need egg and cheese (and then there is the debate over what cheese). I've heard some restaurants stopped serving the dish to prevent heated arguments with their customers.
Even the word for bags in a supermarket can't be agreed on. Here we use "buste", where as in the north they use "sacchetto". Our word there means envelope, so obviously you will get a funny look if you ask for three envelopes when paying for your groceries (the joke is on us though, we use that word for envelope too :P).
Further reading:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/02/origins-history-of-roman-...
riffraff|9 years ago
FWIW, "pizza bianca" is also underspecified, as in many parts of center italy, it might refer to pizza baked from bread makers using the same dough ad the bread rather than pizza dough, just flattened.
curiousgal|9 years ago
bitwize|9 years ago
anthonybsd|9 years ago
anewhnaccount2|9 years ago
miguelrochefort|9 years ago
The solution is to allow every agent to either support or disapprove of every semantic statement. This way, the same query will output different realities depending on the agent's opinions, preferences, and network of trust.
Imagine a knowledge base where Jesus statistically both exists and doesn't exists, depending on who wants to know. A knowledge base where some food item is both a pizza and not a pizza. There's no way around it, and this will become the start of a new semantic marketplace.
phillord|9 years ago
It's hard to do, ontologically, but you can. It tends to make your ontology very complex though, and at the same time incapable (because it's hard to detect contradictions). So you should only do it when you need to.
fibo|9 years ago
It is completely wrong! Pizza and focaccia have a completely different mixture.
Isamu|9 years ago
ithkuil|9 years ago
kidmenot|9 years ago
anonbanker|9 years ago
0. http://www.varasanos.com/PizzaRecipe.htm
coreyp_1|9 years ago
I miss Pizza Hut stuffed-crust pepperoni (with pretzel crust flavor)!!!!
fibo|9 years ago
riordan|9 years ago
Overtonwindow|9 years ago
- April Ludgate
taneq|9 years ago