If we were to have an ontology in our lattice of ontologies, lets say
biological structure, would it change? If another ontology depends on
biological structure would it then change? I assume so.
Perhaps there are 2 identities here, the "slot" for the current
specification of biological structure within the CONSMO hub and the identity
of the version published on a particular date by a particular authority.
There is also the identity of the "value" of the ontology - the set of
axioms. We should know which one we are talking about.
We can hope that the integrity of the lattice remains across versions but we
can only know the integrity of a given configuration.
Configuration management is not a new problem, but the interdependence of
axioms makes it particularly important for ontologies. If a hub is
distributed and federated (like the semantic web) there are some unique
problems to deal with (that w3c has not addressed).
The issue I see is that with the boundaries/scope of an ontology being
arbitrary, managing this lattice will be difficult. If the boundaries are
arbitrary, the "slots" will change just like the versions. Dependency on a
particular version or fixed and single-dimensioned set of slots would be
inflexible and brittle.
-Cory (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Menzel
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:02 AM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] What is "An Ontology"? (02)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:15:25PM -0500, Charles D Turnitsa wrote:
> Somebody responded to Cory's question "do ontologies change over time",
> with the answer "no". I believe that this is incorrect. (03)
Not for the definition of "ontology" I gave. (04)
> As an example consider:
>
> An ontology (describing the entities and relations) defining the laws of
> physical science in 1800
> An ontology (describing the entities and relations) defining the laws of
> physical science in 2000
>
> The ontology is concerned with the same domain (laws of physical science),
> yet the general understanding of that domain by those working within it
has
> changed dramatically. And this is over only 200 years. (05)
Well, even apart from the account I provided, it sure seems to me that
the simplest way to characterize your example is in terms of two
ontologies -- one expressing the physics of 1800 and one expressing the
physics of 2000. (Of course, no one ever really explicitly *formulated*
an ontology of physics in 1800, but never mind :-) Your preference is
that there be one single underlying thing -- The Ontology of Physics --
that has simply morphed and grown over time, but I think you'll be very
hard pressed to say what that thing is in clear and useful terms. The
account I provided is clear and precise: Change, eliminate, or add one
sentence to an ontology and you get a different ontology. There is no
one underlying thing that changes. What we have instead of change of
one ontology over time is a series of similar (ideally, ever more
refined) but distinct, unchanging ontologies. (06)
Chris Menzel (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|