>You're right that import statements should not be considered part of
>an ontology. I agree it's the imported axioms that are part of the
>ontology. (01)
Wait. Of course the imports statements are part
of the ontology. What are you guys talking about? (02)
>Kathy
>
>At 7:02 PM -0600 2/11/07, Christopher Menzel wrote:
>>On Feb 11, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
>>> [John wrote:]
>>>> Following is a better specification of an ontology.
>>>>
>>>> Vocabulary: {loopyLetter}
>>>>
>>>> Theory:
>>>>
>>>> Every loopyLetter is a letter in a circular envelope.
>>>>
>>>> No loopyLetter is delivered on a Tuesday.
>>>>
>>>> This would be a special-case ontology that uses terms that may
>>>> be defined in other ontologies: letter, in, circular, envelope,
>>>> deliver, Tuesday.
>>> ...
>>> Wouldn't you want to require your ontology to explicitly name the
>>> ontologies from which it was drawing terms? Otherwise, we could have
>>> any number of meanings assigned to the terms not defined in the
>>> ontology, if there were multiple external ontologies that defined
>>> them in conflicting ways.
>>
>>I take it that was implicit in John's last sentence there (though his
>>use of "may be defined" does hint that he's leaving it open in the
>>way your response suggests). But let's assume that in a complete
>>example John would have included some relevant URLs -- more exactly,
>>some "import" statements in which URLs are arguments (03)
BUt those are not synonyms. And the first doesn't
make sense, since a URI by itself isn't a
statement. (04)
> -- that point to
>>ontologies that axiomatize "letter", "in", etc. Contrary to what it
>>seems you are suggesting here (forgive me if I'm wrong), I don't
>>believe it would be correct to think of those import statements as
>>part of John's ontology. (05)
Sure it would. Import statements are as much part
of an ontology as any other statements are. (06)
> An import statement is metadata; it is
>>simply a mechanism to support re-use on open networks, an efficient
> >alternative to writing down externally located axioms explicitly. (07)
No, it is an assertion. It even is in CL: check
out the spec., which gives an actual model theory
for it. (imports <name>) is true when
I(I(<name>)) is not false, in essence (its a bit
more complicated than that) (08)
Pat (09)
> It
>>is those externally located axioms themselves, not the statements by
>>which they are imported, that are part of John's ontology.
>>
>>Chris Menzel
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (010)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|