ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?

 To: "Sean Barker" Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:15:54 -0000
 ``` Folks    (01) Having followed this forum for some time, I have a feeling that I may have missed something so obvious that no-one has thought to mention it - that is, is there a formal definition of an ontology? An ontology cannot be just be a bowl of axiom soup, so how does one tell that a particular collection of axioms is an ontology - the question is posed on the analogy that mathematicians differentiate between a group, a ring and a field by the axioms they include. My naive guess for this would be based on set theory, and look something like:    (02) 1) A set S can be defined as S = {x s.t. x satisfies some combination of predicates}; 2) Given a set of predicicates P = {p1, p2,...,pn} and a set of logical operaters L = {l1, l2,...,ln} (perhaps just AND, OR and NOT), then denote Spl as a set defined from some combination of predicates in P and operators in L, and Spl* is the set of all possible sets Spl (perhaps regularised to remove contraditions); 3) An ontology is constructed by taking a collection of sets from Spl* and identifying a partial ordering of those sets using the usual subset relationship.    (03) This would split the study of ontology into three area: 1) the formal problem of ontology as being concerned with the types of mappings (homomorphisms, homeomorphisms, etc) between different ontologies based on the choices from some Spl* 2)the practical problem as finding an ontology that supports the decision procedures in a particular process (I include classifying something as a decision procedure). 3) the computational problem of defining of terminating and efficient procedures for comparing ontologies and mapping between them. (Thanks to Pat Hayes for this suggestion - even his more acerbic comments can be quite enlightening.)    (04) I would then expect there to have been a number of competing definitions, and any number of arguements discussing the relative merits of these definitions. And possibly some argument demostrating that this whole approach is flawed.    (05) My question is, where are these definitions and the ensuing arguments? and is there a good summary of these?    (06) Sean Barker Bristol, UK    (07) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (08) ```
 Current Thread [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Sean Barker <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Azamat Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Toby Considine Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Mike Bennett Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Mike Bennett Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, Pat Hayes