> >
>>I would prefer that we don't say that names are "defined". Very few
>>ontology languages provide for actual definitions of names, and
>>several 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 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
>
> 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 (01)
I think we might be putting different burdens on this word
"definition". I was using in above a logically strict sense in which
a definition is something like (mileages may vary) an equation
between a term and its defining expressions or ontology which is
claimed to be *necessarily* true, or true by *fiat*. These
definitions are for use in machine reasoning more than for human
consumption; and it is that claim of necessity (or similar) to which
I was objecting, basically on logical/engineering grounds (which I
can expand on if anyone is interested). (02)
I think what you are talking about is something like an exposition in
NL of the intended meaning of a term, one that represents to a
competent human reader (the ubiquitous Subject Matter Expert) a kind
of intended target for the formalism to aspire to. If this is more or
less right, I entirely agree that such expositions are important and
may be essential to actual deployment, but that isn't what I was
intending to talk about. So we may be in agreement, but I may not
have communicated my intentions very clearly. (03)
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|