John,
Re: ["an ontology"] "that is designed to characterize the entities of some
domain" (01)
Isn't it more the problems with defining the "domain" than in the concept of
purpose? Even if we have a first-class concept of purpose we still have to
deal with the problem that domains and purpose are not independent, "an
ontology" is not about any particular domain but frequently how that domain
interacts with others. And, getting agreement on the bounds of a domain is
difficult. In addition, parts of an ontology may be "about" different
domains, "an ontology" may not have a homogenous subject or purpose. (02)
This brings me to my concern about the lattice - if the nodes of the lattice
are fixed ontologies (designed sets of statements) that attempt to be
isolated to a domain, we will have endless problems and complexity in trying
to tease apart the domains. Thus enters context - a multi-dimensional
categorization of statements. Perhaps the nodes in the lattice are context.
The concept of context being consistent with the paper you sited earlier. (03)
For example, a set of statements or queries are defined as being in the
context of earth - certain assumptions about mass and weight can be made.
Statements about mass and weight in the context of earth may come from more
than one "ontology" but still be "assembled" for use by the statements or
queries. The referencing statements and "mass and weight on earth" have a
connection, but they are essentially virtual - constructed by contextual
reasoning. (04)
You have already stated this could be done in CL. Interestingly I think
such a capability could also be implemented over RDF, where a referenced URI
was a query that specified a set of context and returned "an ontology" of
the statements in that context. Statements being "in a context" could be
directly specified or implied based on the relations between context -
relations between context is then the lattice. (05)
-Cory (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:39 AM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] What is "An Ontology"? (07)
Dear Matthew, (08)
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: (09)
> A formal ontology is a set of sentences in a formal language. (010)
And I certainly agree with the following statement: (011)
> I think an ontology covers a wider range of things, and
> the addition of "formal" clarifies what we are really
> talking about. (012)
But before I suggest anything further, may I ask an
embarrassing question: (013)
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? (014)
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? (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|