> Chris -
> OK, I don't want to dilute the meanings of well-accepted terms, so
> perhaps you have a suggestion (I'll try to think of another compact
> phrase,
> but one escapes me right now).
>
> I want to say that, for a foundation ontology to have the capability
> to logically represent anything that a person might say (assuming
> that 'anything' is coherent), it has to have both an adequately
> expressive syntax (minimum FOL) and a sufficiently large inventory
> of primitive concepts to create the logical representation. A
> 'primitive' concept is a concept that cannot be ontologically
> represented by use of ontology elements already in the foundation
> ontology. (This gets into the question of what it means to represent
> a meaning, but for a start we can just say that what is good enough
> to get correct results in all tested applications is an adequate
> representation of the meaning).
>
> If we can't say that the FO "has the expressive power of a human
> language" would you have an alternative compact but comprehensible
> way of saying that? "descriptive power"? (01)
That expression is certainly in use, sometimes as a synonym for
"expressive power", but it seems to me (though I could be wrong) that
it is far less widely used than "expressive power" and, moreover, that
it does not have as fixed and deeply entrenched a meaning. Seems to
me it's a reasonable choice so long as its intended (informal) meaning
is made clear. (02)
> I would like to use "definitional power" but there are some that
> prefer to reserve "definition" to its necessary and sufficient
> meaning - better to avoid that issue. (03)
Yes, misuses and misunderstandings of "definition" and its cognates
are rampant. (04)
-chris (05)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:08 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
>> standards
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>>> The problem with letting the "market" determine standards is that
>>> there has to be an effective "market", with multiple candidates,
>>> and multiple users, for it to work. In the case of a foundation
>>> ontology, there have been publicly available candidates for over 6
>>> years, but as yet there are few users (applications, anyone?) and
>>> nothing remotely resembling a "market" has developed. This should
>>> give us a clue that we are dealing with a technology that is not
>>> simplistically analogous to the ones we are accustomed to. On
>>> reflection this should not be terribly surprising -- a proper
>>> foundation ontology will have the content and expressive power of
>>> a human language,
>>
>> I'm guessing that what you have in mind here is simply that the
>> language of a foundational ontology should enable us to give
>> adequate formal expression (in a sense that itself needs
>> clarification) to anything we can say in a natural language. Sure
>> thing. That said, I think it is best to avoid using terms like
>> "expressive power" that have clear mathematical meanings to convey
>> informal ideas. This is admittedly a pet peeve of mine, but one
>> that I think is reasonable, as the use of such terms easily leads
>> to confusion (since their meanings in informal contexts are
>> inevitably different than their formal meanings). And, although I
>> do not believe it is Patrick's intent here, all too often such
>> terms are used rhetorically to suggest a greater degree of clarity
>> and rigor than is warranted.
>>
>>> and nothing like it has been actually developed **and widely
>>> used** up to now (WordNet is not an ontology in that sense).
>>
>> Or any other, I'd say. ;-)
>>
>> -chris (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|