Good questions. Definition of ontologies should be
constructed formally (through axioms on agreed-upon
primatives) in order to maintain consistency. (01)
However, there is always the danger of semantic shift
which you mention below. As ontologies grow and/or are
used by a more diverse group, higher-level concepts
can change and affect lower-level concepts that infer
properties or relationships from them. (02)
One way to guard against this would be to restrict who
can author changes to the higher-level generic
concepts and relationships. Additionally, any changes
would need to be communicated to those creating more
subject-oriented graphs off the higher-level
branches. (03)
This could also be automated by doing some
regression-like assessment through regularly
propogating changes throughout the system. Since it's
impossible to think of all the possibilities of how a
concept can shift semantically, maybe one can only use
his/her best judgment until it breaks? comments
welcome. (04)
:) Lisa Dawn Colvin
ontologist-at-large (05)
"Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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? (06)
> 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.
>
> I would appreciate your responses.
>
> 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
>
>
> -----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
>
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|