>From Chuck: (01)
> 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)? (02)
Yes, but I would not say universally agreed - rather agreed amongst a
community, cf. for
example a Marxist ontology of economics vs. a capitalist ontology of
economics - they do not
even have the same categories of economic activities/accounts. (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)
Yes, but presumably (as others have noted here) the definition must be
necessary and sufficient.
The problem is that in some areas (mathematics especially) one may have
a collection of axioms which
taken together specify the "definitions" of several "concepts",
but are difficult to disentangle. (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 Charles D
Turnitsa
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:35 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Cc: [ontolog-forum] ; ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Role of definitions (Remember the poor
human) (08)
Frank, (09)
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...) (010)
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)? (011)
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? (012)
Chuck (013)
Charles Turnitsa
Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center Old Dominion University
Research Foundation
(757) 638-6315 (voice)
cturnits@xxxxxxx (014)
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/13/2007 02:22:13 PM: (015)
> 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). (016)
> 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 (017)
> ontologies, definitions (ideally both natural language definitions and (018)
> 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/ (019)
> 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
> (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (022)
|