Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation

[Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>]

At 2:41 PM -0400 5/1/08, Bill Andersen wrote:

> > And yes, that is an ontology. Its not a
> > very interesting ontology, but I see nothing whatever to be gained by
> > trying to give criteria to distinguish 'mere assertions' from 'real
> > ontologies'.
>
> I did not advocate that position.
>  Others did; I stayed on the fence.

It seems pretty clear which side your legs are on, though.

> > This kind of distinction is impossible to
> > make precise, cannot be based on anything other than intuition or
> > prejudice, and in any case is not the slightest use. So, to hell with
> > it. To ignore it is good engineering, good methodology and (I submit)
> > good philosophy. I propose to ignore it, and urge others to do the
> > same.
>
> The problem I have with the use of the
> term "ontology" in the way you suggest is that it is thereby
> just a synonym for perfectly useful and well-understood technical
> terminology that we already have.  Namely "logical
> theory".

Right. Though since not all ontology languages are really logics, it might be taken to have a wider extension.

> The only reason I can see for the use of
> the term "ontology" in this connection is to increase the
> chances of winning funding from people who still attach mystic
> significance to the term "ontology" that they would not to
> "logical theory"

Quite. But isn't that the only reason for using the word "ontology" under any circumstances?

> Surely you can't be in favor of
> introducing a new term that does no more and no less work than
> established terms of art in logic and automated theorem proving, can
> you?

I wouldn't be if the term really were new (and I resolutely ignored it when it was first introduced) but its no longer new, and we are now stuck with it. But it does a lot less harm if its merely a synonym than if its supposed to have some mystical importance inherited from philosophy or the latest vogue in management theory. Certainly I don't think we should be trying to invent some way to separate it from 'logical theory' simply in order to justify its existence.

Pat

>

        .bill

>
>
> Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
> 3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite
> 600
> Baltimore, MD 21224
> Office: 410-675-1201
> Cell: 443-858-6444

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)