Frank, (01)
I am inclined to agree with Barry's position as well, that definitions can
prove quite useful in certain situations. (In fact, the possibility of
doing so is strongly related to one of the open quiestions of my PhD
research...) (02)
I am curious, however, as to what you mean when you use the term concept.
Are you talking about an idealized type - a universally agreed on idea that
cognitively expresses a thing (process or object)? (03)
If so, then it seems to me that by sufficiently axiomatizing an
appreciation of such a "concept", such a sufficient axiomatization could
serve as a definition of the concept. Any thoughts? (04)
Chuck (05)
Charles Turnitsa
Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
Old Dominion University Research Foundation
(757) 638-6315 (voice)
cturnits@xxxxxxx (06)
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/13/2007 02:22:13 PM: (07)
> Concerning the issue of definitions, I am inclined to mostly agree
> with Barry Smith (although he will probably object to "concepts".
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> However, if several "concepts" are defined by a collection
> of axioms it may be difficult to untangle the collection of axioms
> into individual "definitions".
>
> 3) There is the problem of reconciling natural language definitions
> used in conjunction with formal definitions.
>
>
> Frank Olken
>
> 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
>
> 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)
>
>
> >
> >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
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (08)
> 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
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|