Dear John, (01)
I was not particularly trying to get in the way of the discussion
between you and Chris on the additions to the definition you are
seeking. But since you challenge me hear are my 10c worth. (02)
In the standards world, the definition usually consists of a
formal definition (maximum one sentence) saying what something
is, one or more notes that elaborate and talk about things like
usage or purpose, you then finish off with some examples. (03)
I see Chris's as the first, and your additions as the second. So
I suggest you just round it off with some examples. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (06)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 20 January 2006 13:39
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] What is "An Ontology"?
>
>
> Dear Matthew,
>
> That definition does not distinguish an ontology
> from a theory, description, specification, answer,
> text, or many other kinds of collections of sentences
> expressed in a formal language:
>
> > A formal ontology is a set of sentences in a formal language.
>
> And I certainly agree with the following statement:
>
> > I think an ontology covers a wider range of things, and
> > the addition of "formal" clarifies what we are really
> > talking about.
>
> But before I suggest anything further, may I ask an
> embarrassing question:
>
> Why is it so difficult for professionals who have spent
> many years working on ontology to be able to write a
> definition of the word "ontology", which distinguishes
> it from just a theory or any other collection of
> sentences written for any other purpose under heaven?
>
> Do you want to say that there is no difference? Or that
> for some reason, you and Chris are reluctant to mention
> the purpose of this endeavor we are all engaged in? Or
> that the P-word is prohibited in definitions? If so, why?
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologyTaxonomyCo
ordinatingWG (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)
|