Ontological terms
Ontological concepts
Ontological meanings (01)
Regards,
Antoinette (02)
Antoinette Arsic
Sr. Information Systems Engineer
The MITRE Corporation
703-337-9016 (VOIP)
*703-983-5286 (new office number, was 883)
*443-567-2703 (new cell) (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cassidy, Patrick
J.
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:14 PM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class et al. -- 'Term'? (04)
I have asked for an alternative to "concept" for a broadly applicable
term to refer to the elements in an ontology: (05)
[PC] >I need a term that means "a class or relation or function or
instance
>or metaclass or function term or axiom or procedural rule or attached
>method or any other element that we would want to put into an ontology
>that represents some element of meaning, as distinct from the actual
>things in the world to which they refer and as distinct from the
>specific manner in which they happen to be represented." or "some
>abstract entity which is represented by symbols in our ontologies, is
>intended to correspond in structure to some idea people have about
>something or other, and refers to something other than itself".
>Does anyone else have a candidate for a general term we should use to
>refer to any of the constituent elements of our ontologies? (06)
Barry Smith suggests: (07)
[BS] >> Term (08)
Unfortunately, 'Term' has been very widely used in the sense of
'element in a term list', and has been used as closely synonymous with
'Word'. In the usage I am most familiar with a 'Term' is considered as
a label for a specific concept (in the sense above) and there are many
terms that may refer to one Class or Relation in an ontology
(synonymy), and one 'Term' may refer to several Classes or relations in
an ontology (Ambiguity). I think that given its current usage, the use
of 'Term' to label the intended meaning described above is more likely
to confuse than clarify. (09)
But as I mentioned, I will use whatever terms a majority of us feel
most appropriate. (010)
Any other suggestions? (011)
Pat (012)
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (013)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:47 PM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class et al. (014)
At 05:25 PM 1/18/2006, you wrote:
>COSMO-WG:
> This is a first note using the ONTAC-dev listserver. I did not
>receive any objections to moving our discussions to the ONTAC-dev
>server, so all COSMO-WG members should find themselves on the list.
>
> Regarding the issue of what to call a 'Class' - Type? . . .
>
>First a clarification:
>
> >> The first [concept] is a disaster, though it is used e.g.
>by ISO in its current terminology standards, and indeed by our Great
>Leader.
>
>[PC] modestly accepting what I believe is a reference to my frequent
>use of the term "concept", please understand that I fully sympathize
>with Barry's emphasis on the need to distinguish between real things
in
>the world and the concepts people have of them and the terms by which
>we refer to them. But I am not aware yet of a usage that will serve
>all of our purposes, and have noticed some problems caused by a lack
of
>standardization of these terms. So it's probably a good idea to try
to
>agree on a terminology.
>
>I need a term that means "a class or relation or function or instance
>or metaclass or function term or axiom or procedural rule or attached
>method or any other element that we would want to put into an ontology
>that represents some element of meaning, as distinct from the actual
>things in the world to which they refer and as distinct from the
>specific manner in which they happen to be represented." or "some
>abstract entity which is represented by symbols in our ontologies, is
>intended to correspond in structure to some idea people have about
>something or other, and refers to something other than itself". (015)
I think that with this vegetable garden you are just proving my point. (016)
>For that, I have been using the term "concept". Occasionally in
>informal notes I may use "notion". In deference to Barry's dislike of
>'concept', I have occasionally used the phrase "Class or relation",
>though that leaves out all those other things I want to refer to.
>
>I think this is close to what is usually intended by references to
>Ogden's "meaning triangle":
>
>
> Concept
> / \
> / \
> / \
> Symbol/Term --- Referent/Thing/Real-world Object
>
>Does anyone else have a candidate for a general term we should use to
>refer to any of the constituent elements of our ontologies? (017)
Term (018)
>----
>When I mean a "Class" (Type, Category, Kind) I say "Class". (019)
This is not an element in the ontology. It is what an element in the
ontology refers to (or it is the extension of what an element in the
ontology refers to). (020)
>I use "Class" because it is used by the RDF and OWL communities (which
>are W3C standards), and I try to use the terms which are most widely
>used. (021)
"Concept" is an ISO standard; but good sense will win through, in the
end. (022)
> I believe this to be identical in meaning to "Collection" as
>used in OpenCyc, "Class" in SUMO, "Universal" in DOLCE and "Property"
>in the Ontology Works system. I use it in the Ontolingua sense, as an
>intensionally defined grouping distinct from 'Set' which refers to an
>extensionally defined grouping. I am not intending to use it in the
>set-theoretic sense.
>
>That term may have different usages in different communities (I think
>ISO15926 has a slightly different usage, though I do not yet fully
>understand it).
>
>For our discussions, I will happily use any term on which we can
agree.
>
>As for Barry's list:
>
>[BS] >> There is no perfect solution here. The
>conceivably feasible alternatives (known to me) are:
>
>concept
>universal
>type
>class
>species
>kind
>category
>
>[PC] . . . you left out "Sort" and "Property" (the latter from
Ontology
>Works). (023)
I agree that 'sort' should be on the list. I do not think 'property'
fits, however. We have (024)
Fido instance_of dog (025)
'Fido' refers to an instance (026)
Q1. What does 'dog' refer to? (027)
The color of this book instance_of red. (028)
'The color of this book' refers to an instance (029)
Q2. What does 'red' refer to? (030)
>a universal
>a type
>a class
>a species
>a kind
>a category
>a sort (031)
are all reasonable answers to both Q1 and Q2. 'Concept' is a good
answer to none of them. 'Property' a good answer at best to Q2. (032)
>For our immediate purpose we only need to fix on the term we will use
>to refer to those intensionally defined groupings called:
>
> Class in Ontolingua and Protege
> Class in RDF and OWL
> Class in SUMO
> Collection in OpenCyc
> Universal in DOLCE
> Property in Ontology Works' IODE system
> ---------------
>
> The vote is still open. (033)
I vote for (034)
type
universal
kind
sort (035)
in this order.
BS (036)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG (037)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG (038)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (039)
|