Frank, (01)
Yes, I apologize for using Universal without my usual proviso. I intend,
in my definitions, for Universal to extend only to the limits of the
community or domain that the ontology pertains to. (02)
I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a truly universal (for
all domains) definition of a concept. But that's only my theory... (03)
The one thing that gives me hope in pursuing this line of research is that
I am intending the method of capturing a complete definition of meaning for
elements in an ontology for purposes of describing a worldview as it is
exhibited by a computer system (a synthetic world, or simulation, to be
precise), which will have a necessarily finite and limited number of
aspects to any element of the ontology. (04)
In a worldview that is open to interpretation and representation by a more
complex class of reasoners than a computer system, say a worldview that is
interpreted and represented by human beings using (for instance) intuition,
deduction, imagination, and natural language - then I don't think that my
approach would be possible (too many perspectives to account for a single
definition of any element of the ontology, in this case). (05)
Chuck (06)
Charles Turnitsa
Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
Old Dominion University Research Foundation
(757) 638-6315 (voice)
cturnits@xxxxxxx (07)
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/14/2007 02:28:48 PM: (08)
> >From Chuck:
>
> > 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)?
>
> 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.
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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 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)
>
> Frank,
>
> 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...)
>
> 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)?
>
> 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?
>
> Chuck
>
>
> Charles Turnitsa
> Project Scientist
> Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center Old Dominion University
> Research Foundation
> (757) 638-6315 (voice)
> cturnits@xxxxxxx
>
>
> ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/13/2007 02:22:13 PM:
>
> > 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/
>
> > 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ (09)
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|