ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Defining Concept

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:52:52 -0500
Message-id: <48f213f30701191252g23613e4cr8e644adfb4e0fcf6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Regarding a better word for Concept - I like to use the word Original,
as in an original peice of music even if it has many versions or
recordings, there is still one main "one" and it is a noun. Other
terms you may consider are:    (01)

Facet    (02)

Assembly    (03)

Bound or Bounded    (04)

Prime (as in an indivisible prime number)    (05)

Set    (06)

Totality    (07)

or    (08)

Resource    (09)

Hope this helps,    (010)

Debbie MacPherson
Accuracy&Aesthetics    (011)

On 1/19/07, Charles D Turnitsa <CTurnits@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>  I realize that this is not necessarily the most salient topic for this
> forum, but all of the field experts whose opinion I would trust are here,
> so I'll take advantage.
>
>  I have been working for a couple of years now in the area of ontological
> representation and ontological modeling, and I have a component based
> theory that I use for my work.  It is one of the pieces of my PhD work, and
> serves a couple of useful purposes for projects I work on.  The model takes
> the approach of having a taxonomy, with entities and relationships, to
> model the knowledge and process of a domain - and to show semantic
> relations between entities (other than subsumption relationships) where
> appropriate.  The two added components that I have been working on are
> rules formalizing the application of those semantic relations, and a way to
> model the meaning of an entity by trying to capture its aspects, which I
> have referred to as concepts.
>
> By concepts, here I mean a universal, non-divisible idea.  This "concept"
> when combined with others forms the definition of an entity.
>
> The problem I have is that the word Concept is much too overloaded in our
> community, so I am frequently at a loss to get past assumptions about its
> definition.  One of my possible solutions is to use the word Aspect
> instead, but I don't want to clear up one problem by starting another.
>
> Any suggestions or observations?
>
> Chuck
>
>
> Charles Turnitsa
> Project Scientist
> Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
> Old Dominion University Research Foundation
> 7000 College Drive
> Suffolk, Virginia 23435
> (757) 638-6315 (voice)
> (757) 686-6214 (fax)
> cturnits@xxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>    (012)


--     (013)

*************************************************    (014)

Deborah MacPherson
www.accuracyandaesthetics.com
www.deborahmacpherson.com    (015)

The content of this email may contain private
confidential information. Do not forward, copy,
share, or otherwise distribute without explicit
written permission from all correspondents.    (016)

**************************************************    (017)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (018)

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