ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] orthogonal

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:10:19 -0500
Message-id: <F727D7E4-6CC7-4316-9308-0BB6CD752B6D@xxxxxxxxx>
As used in the OBO Foundry, orthogonality is better first understood  
on a term by term basis. Adding a term that is trivially redundant  
with another one, by denoting the same thing, is the first thing to  
avoid. Less trivially, if there is a way to logically define the new  
terms in terms of existing ones, then not doing so leads to a  
situation where two users might denote the same thing in two  
unconnected ways: Using the new term, or using the compound of  
existing terms. This is also to be avoided, if possible.    (01)

The reason to avoid these situations is that one typically uses an  
ontology to mediate queries and it is desirable to have any query  
return all relevant answers. Having two ways to say the same thing  
means that the user needs to know both ways to ask the question, and  
this puts a higher burden on learning and using the ontology.    (02)

Generalizing to orthogonality between ontologies, we'd understand two  
ontologies as being orthogonal if no term in one is orthogonal to the  
other ontology, in the senses above.    (03)

-Alan
(preparing to take cover ;-)    (04)

On Mar 4, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Bill Andersen wrote:    (05)

> It's a category error to apply the notion of orthogonality to
> ontologies since ontologies are not vectors.
>
> More informally speaking, there may be some sort of linguistic-based
> heuristic notion you're after but you'd have to say what that might be
> and what you want to do with it.
>
> Bill Andersen
> Ontology Works, Inc.
> 3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
> Baltimore, MD  21224
> +1.410.675.1204 (w)
> +1.410.675.1201 (f)
> +1.443.858.6444 (m)
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:31 AM, "Alexander Garcia Castro"  
> <alexgarciac@xxxxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>
>> Hopefully this is not so out of focus. I am looking for a definition
>> for orthogonality. When are ontologies orthogonal? Any body who can
>> recommend me some good papers about orthogonal ontologies? Is there
>> a measure for orthogonality?
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>    (06)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>