ontac-dev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-dev] What is "An Ontology"?

To: John Cabral <jcabral@xxxxxxx>
Cc: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:14:14 -0600
Message-id: <20060120161414.GP47203@xxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:27:02AM -0600, John Cabral wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> With regards to criticisms of the simple definition,
> 
> 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.    (01)

Certainly true, John.  I *think* you consider this breakability a
virtue, but I'm not sure.  Or is it just an observation?    (02)

> 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.    (03)

Right.  It seems to me that any definition that tries to rule out
"2+2=4" and rule in Cyc's upper ontology or SUMO is hopeless.    (04)

> With regards to identity and changes...
> 
> 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.    (05)

I should think this is possible.    (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)

Strongly agree.    (08)

-chris    (09)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (010)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>