Adrian,
I don't see how URIs address this topic. This isn't an issue of naming
or reference. Even if the engineer grounds a term as a URI, a subsequent
user of that term adds semantics to it by virtue of its use. If the
original semantics are necessary but not sufficient, as they will be for
most real world concepts, the new axioms may not follow the original intent. (01)
Adam (02)
At 11:49 AM 5/3/2005, Internet Business Logic wrote:
>Hi Adam, All --
>
>
>You wrote...
>
>The intent of the engineer who created the term may be different from that
>of a later engineer who wants to add semantics to the term. I don't see
>any general solution to this other than controlling the upper ontology to
>a degree by having a single architect, and well trained collaborators.
>
>A proposed general solution is surely the use of URIs in the semantic web.
>
> Cheers, -- Adrian
>
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>>Hi Duane,
>> A good way to check this issue I think is to look at SUMO. The only
>> "primitives" that are undefined in the ontology are the logical
>> operators, which are defined in the SUO-KIF language
>> specification. Every term builds up definitions from the logical
>> operators, and then other terms. I don't believe there are any circular
>> definitions in the ontology, although I'd be glad to discuss any that
>> appear so, since that would be a bug.
>> Ron Schuldt brings up the issue of language, which is often a problem
>> with informal ontologies that do not separate logical terms from
>> linguistic tokens. A formal ontology such as SUMO must distinguish
>> language from logic to avoid the sort of confusion or imposition he
>> describes. SUMO does this by keeping WordNet synsets and SUMO terms
>> related but separate.
>> Lisa brings up an interesting issue about "semantic shift". In a
>> formal ontology, terms mean exactly what the axioms say they
>> mean. However, very few terms in the common sense world have necessary
>> and sufficient definitions. Each new axiom in which a term appears adds
>> to its formal definition. It is quite possible to use a term in a way
>> that is consistent with its semantics so far, and then extends those
>> semantics. If there are a lot of terms in an ontology, the engineer may
>> make an error in the use of the term. Testing for logical
>> contradictions or against a regression test suite can help. Because
>> common sense terms don't often have sufficient (in the mathematical
>> sense) definitions they are unfinished products. The intent of the
>> engineer who created the term may be different from that of a later
>> engineer who wants to add semantics to the term. I don't see any
>> general solution to this other than controlling the upper ontology to a
>> degree by having a single architect, and well trained
>> collaborators. Fortunately, that's the case for SUMO.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>At 07:25 AM 5/3/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chris Menzel wrote:
>>>
>>>>O
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>Chris:
>>>
>>>This is what I wanted to explore. Look at the english dictionary - it
>>>uses all the words that are defined in the dictionary to define the
>>>words in the dictionary. A great deal of care is taken to avoid direct
>>>inclusion of terms in circular references however most of the words
>>>defined by the dictionary are probably used in definitions of other words.
>>>
>>>Is that really an ontology? Are there formulas that state the number of
>>>levels a word must be reasonably not used in a set of definitions until
>>>it is used again?
>>>
>>>Example:
>>>
>>>1. A Company is a military unit, typically consisting of 100-200 soldiers
>>>
>>>2. A Battalion is an army unit usually consisting of a headquarters and
>>>three or more companies
>>>
>>>3. A Division is an military unit large enough to sustain combat
>>>
>>>4. A Regiment is a military unit, larger than a company and smaller than
>>>a division
>>>
>>>In the definition of Regiment #4, we have used words to explain it that
>>>were just defined themselves #1,3. #2 is superfluous yet aids in
>>>providing semantics to some degree (or does it?).
>>>
>>>Sorry to once again be the loose cannon ;-)
>>>
>>>Duane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>***********
>>>Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. -
>>><http://www.adobe.com>http://www.adobe.com
>>>Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary -
>>><http://www.unece.org/cefact/>http://www.unece.org/cefact/
>>>Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources -
>>><http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html>http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
>
>>>
>>>***********
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Message Archives:
>>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
>>>
>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>
>>>
>>>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>>Community Wiki:
>>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
>>><mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>----------------------------
>>Adam Pease
>><http://www.ontologyportal.org>http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free
>>ontologies and tools
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Message Archives:
>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
>>
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>
>>
>>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>Community Wiki:
>><http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
>><mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Internet Business Logic -- online at
><http://www.reengineeringllc.com>www.reengineeringllc.com
>
>Reengineering LLC, PO Box 1412, Bristol, CT 06011-1412, USA
>
>Phone 860 583 9677 Mobile 860 830 2085 Fax 860 314 1029
>
> (03)
----------------------------
Adam Pease
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|