Concerning the issue of definitions, I am inclined to mostly agree
with Barry Smith (although he will probably object to "concepts". (01)
1) In recent terminology/metadata standards names
(or more commonly terms - since (proper) names may designate
individuals)
designate concepts which have "definitions" - either in natural
language and/or formal definitions. There is some shift to
using "signs" as a generalization of "names" in recent standards.
Often a given concept will have multiple "names" in several
languages. (02)
2) The formal definitions are just collections of axioms
which constrain a particular concept (represented by a symbol
in the axiom). As Barry (and others) have noted,
it is generally more convenient for the human
users of such ontologies if they can readily examine the collection
of axioms which constrains the semantics of a particular concept.
It may also help some reasoning systems if the axioms relevant to
a concept are grouped together. (03)
However, if several "concepts" are defined by a collection
of axioms it may be difficult to untangle the collection of axioms
into individual "definitions". (04)
3) There is the problem of reconciling natural language definitions
used in conjunction with formal definitions. (05)
Frank Olken (06)
National Science Foundation
Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate
Intelligent Information Systems Division
Information Integration and Informatics
Suite 1125
4201 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22230 (07)
Tel: 703-292-8930 (main)
Tel: 703-292-7350 (direct)
Email: folken@xxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith,
Barry
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:01 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Role of definitions (Remember the poor human) (08)
>
>I would prefer that we don't say that names are "defined". Very few
>ontology languages provide for actual definitions of names, and several (09)
>that once did (notably KIF) no longer do. Explicit definitions are
>semantically troublesome, practically of no actual use, create
>paradoxes, and generally have negative utility. The entire SWeb
>apparatus has no definitions in it anywhere, nor is it likely to in the (010)
>future. It is very hard to even see what it would mean to define a
>globally useable name. Let us just say that names occur in ontologies,
>and ontologies constrain the meaning of names.
>
>Pat (011)
From my experience working with biologists and medical researchers on
ontologies, definitions (ideally both natural language definitions and
equivalent formal definitions) play a very useful role when it comes to
ensuring that ontologies are populated in consistent ways across
disciplines and subsequently used correctly (or indeed at all) in
practical applications. Most of those involved in such use will not have
logical or computer science expertise. Where else should they turn to
find out what a term means?
BS (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|