The question is: what do the terms in an ontology designate?
'Ontological terms' is not a good answer to this question.
'[Ontological] concept' has led to many forms of confusion.
'Ontological meanings' would be an answer to another question: what
do the terms in an ontology mean?
BS (01)
At 07:20 PM 1/18/2006, you wrote:
>Ontological terms
>Ontological concepts
>Ontological meanings
>
>
>Regards,
>Antoinette
>
>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)
>
>
>-----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'?
>
>I have asked for an alternative to "concept" for a broadly applicable
>term to refer to the elements in an ontology:
>
>[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'. 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.
>
>But as I mentioned, I will use whatever terms a majority of us feel
>most appropriate.
>
>Any other suggestions?
>
>Pat
>
>
>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
>
>
>-----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.
>
>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".
>
>I think that with this vegetable garden you are just proving my point.
>
> >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?
>
>Term
>
> >----
> >When I mean a "Class" (Type, Category, Kind) I say "Class".
>
>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).
>
> >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.
>
>"Concept" is an ISO standard; but good sense will win through, in the
>end.
>
> > 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).
>
>I agree that 'sort' should be on the list. I do not think 'property'
>fits, however. We have
>
>Fido instance_of dog
>
>'Fido' refers to an instance
>
>Q1. What does 'dog' refer to?
>
>The color of this book instance_of red.
>
>'The color of this book' refers to an instance
>
>Q2. What does 'red' refer to?
>
> >a universal
> >a type
> >a class
> >a species
> >a kind
> >a category
> >a sort
>
>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.
>
> >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.
>
>I vote for
>
>type
>universal
>kind
>sort
>
>in this order.
>BS
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|