ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontolog-forum] Re: Semantics

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 19:44:56 -0600
Message-id: <48359263E1CF8240804C259597B85EAB05D383@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I would like to explore Duane's question further.     (01)

Isn't it safe to say that the English language has multiple definitions
(in many instances) for a given word? In most cases, the proper
definition depends on the context (use) domain.     (02)

Isn't it also safe to say that any ontology must select a definition for
a given word and then use it consistently throughout the ontology -
regardless the other possible uses?     (03)

It seems to me that an ontology forces users across multiple domains
into a model that they may or may not have selected if given their own
choice or customary use of a definition within their own domain. Doesn't
this create confusion for the people who ultimately build real-world
applications using their own terminology that has been adopted for
many-many years in a given domain.    (04)

I would appreciate your responses.    (05)

Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx    (06)


-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Chris Menzel
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:21 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Semantics    (07)


On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:56:22PM -0700, Duane Nickull wrote:
> Is it true that a formal ontology is a circular reference pattern, 
> albeit a very indirect, complicated and very large one?  Does any 
> definition assume the knowledge of other axioms in a model, that 
> themselves may be dependent upon the definition one is trying to
> clarify?     (08)

Well, if a definition of a concept *does* make use of concepts that are
axiomatized in terms of concept being defined, then it is just a bad
definition.  There is certainly nothing in the idea of a formal ontology
per se that would somehow make such definitions inevitable.    (09)

Chris Menzel    (010)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (011)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (012)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>