Ron Schuldt writes:
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?
Chris Menzel writes:
If I want
to keep using "widget" with my meaning, I can rename occurrences of "widget"
in O1 systematically (with "O1-widget", say) and the ambiguity disappears.
Chris also says:
But one of the points of building an ontology
is to *fix* meaning and thereby to *avoid* confusion.
I suggest that the point of building an ontology is to
document meaning and thereby enhance understanding. That the
meaning of words/terms/phrases may differ with context is a given. An
ontology should routinely include context in its architecture, such that it is
capable for example of documenting multiple meanings of a 'widget'
along with their associated contexts. Note that I do not suggest that
ambiguity will 'disappear'. Nor do I see that as a practical
goal. Since an ontology that tracks a real world will grow/morph over
time, meanings cannot be 'fixed'. On the other hand,
inference machines work pretty well when presented with fuzzy data.
Cheers,
Bob
Miller