On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Chris Menzel wrote: (01)
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:14:14 -0600
> From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
> To: John Cabral <jcabral@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] What is "An Ontology"?
>
> 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.
>
> Certainly true, John. I *think* you consider this breakability a
> virtue, but I'm not sure. Or is it just an observation? (02)
Actually, I was trying to give practical reasons for adopting the "set of
sentences" definition of an ontology. By breaking, I mean, introducing
contradictions. So, this wasn't a virtue, it was expressing a worry that
users of an ontology might have. (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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> I should think this is possible.
>
> > 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.)
>
> Strongly agree.
>
> -chris
>
> (04)
-- (05)
======================================================
John Cabral (06)
Cycorp
3721 Executive Center Drive
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78731-1615 (07)
Office: (512) 514-2977
FAX: (512) 342-4040 (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)
|