>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:15:32AM -0000, West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 wrote:
> > Dear Chris,
> >
> > Could I attempt a slight precisification? I suggest:
> >
> > A formal ontology is a set of sentences in a formal langauge.
> >
> > I think an ontology covers a wider range of things, and the
> > addition of "formal" clarifies what we are really talking
> > about.
>
> That strikes me as a useful clarification.
> (01)
With regards to criticisms of the simple definition, (02)
First, it only takes one sentence to 'break' an ontology and make it
inconsistent. Therefore, the exact set of sentences that you are
depending on is not a trivial issue. (03)
Second, isa 2+2=4 is an ontology the same way that a "Hello World" program
is a program. It's not very interesting, but it counts. (04)
With regards to identity and changes... (05)
Can't we resolve a large part of this problem by developing a bookkeeping
/ documentation system that will allow us to track these sets of
formal sentences and how they relate to each other and allow the
developers to communicate with others how they intended the ontology to be
used. (06)
Moreover, the documentation will allow us to explain the purpose of the
ontology without requiring that we come up with an actual theory of
purpose that's included in the ontology itself. (That is, of course an
ontology has a purpose, but it doesn't have to be an ontology that can
represent purposes.) (07)
John C. (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)
|