At 07:13 PM 1/18/2006, you wrote:
>I have asked for an alternative to "concept" for a broadly applicable
>term to refer to the elements in an ontology: (01)
If an ontology is, roughly, a graph-theoretic structure, then it has
two kinds of elements, nodes and vertices. For these elements I
suggest the terms 'term' and 'relation'. (02)
>[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?
>
>Barry Smith suggests:
>
>[BS] >> Term
>
>
>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'. (03)
That is a positive advantage. (04)
>In the usage I am most familiar with a 'Term' is considered as
>a label for a specific concept (in the sense above) (05)
A term (word) has a meaning and a referent. I am happy if you use
'concept' for the meaning of a term; and then I propose that you use
'type' for the referent. (06)
>and there are many
>terms that may refer to one Class or Relation in an ontology
>(synonymy) (07)
A good ontology should include only one term for each type, and only
one relational expression for each relation; the fact that there are
synonymous expressions used by outsiders is, indeed, a problem, but
probably unsolvable in our lifetimes. (08)
>, and one 'Term' may refer to several Classes or relations in
>an ontology (Ambiguity). (09)
That is the reason why we have definitions.
BS (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|