[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:28:33 -0500
Message-id: <437F7CE1.8030107@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I'd just like to clarify some of the points.    (01)

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Barry Smith:    (02)

 > There are no concepts in BFO. (Ontology is not psychology
 > or linguistics.) BFO is a top-level ontology, with 38 types
 > (universals, categories, kinds, classes)...    (03)

To be precise, ontology is a branch of philosophy.
Applied ontology is the application of ontological
theories in some other field, such as linguistics,
artificial intelligence, or library science.    (04)

When used with the indefinite article, *an ontology*
is an expression of the definitions of some ontological
categories or types in some language, which ideally
should be some version of logic.  When expressed in
language X, one might adopt the terminology used
for the syntactic categories of language X, such as
"predicate" in predicate calculus when a predicate
is used to define an ontological type.    (05)

When I use conceptual graphs as the version of logic
for expressing an ontology, I use the word "type",
which is standard terminology in conceptual graphs.
But I often qualify that term as "concept type" or
"conceptual relation type" when I refer to the
syntactic categories of conceptual graphs.    (06)

I would not use the word "concept", by itself,
to refer to a type or category of an ontology.    (07)

John Sowa    (08)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>