I would suggest it is very important not to conflate terms and concepts. I
am using term to mean "symbol", perhaps you are using it another way. Even
if you are using it another way, many people will think it is symbol. We
should then be able to have multiple contextual names for concepts.
"Role" is frequently used as the "ends" of a relation. I would suggest the
symbols "role" & "relation" as representing foundational concepts. (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:35 PM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class et al. -- 'Term'? (02)
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: (03)
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'. (04)
>[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'. (05)
That is a positive advantage. (06)
>In the usage I am most familiar with a 'Term' is considered as
>a label for a specific concept (in the sense above) (07)
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. (08)
>and there are many
>terms that may refer to one Class or Relation in an ontology
>(synonymy) (09)
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. (010)
>, and one 'Term' may refer to several Classes or relations in
>an ontology (Ambiguity). (011)
That is the reason why we have definitions.
BS (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|