Dear Ian, (01)
> Phew! Thanks Matthew - very nicely explained ! I was beginning to hope
> someone would come in and save me before I mired myself ever deeper in
> this
> debate. (02)
[MW] Well I wasn't actually explaining anything, just seeking clarification. (03)
> I would go a bit further though. I would argue you can have the
> same
> (e.g. higher-order) ontology and represent it in two different RDFS
> projections. The first would only use first-order constructs, and the
> second
> would use higher-order constructs. It's still the same ontology, I've
> just
> chosen not to use some bits of RDFS that would make the ontology scare
> the
> level five wizards. (04)
[MW] No. Here you come unstuck with the computer science formal ontologists.
What you have in each of these cases is a different ontology that may well
be a subset of the original ontology. It at least has a different set of
inferences that can be made from it. (05)
> In ISO15926, the classes, and indeedtype-instance
> relationships, happens to be represented in EXPRESS, and instantiated
> as a
> line in a P21 file (or a as muddle of XML in a P28 file).
>
> Pat made a good point though - yes it would be downright silly to
> deliberately confuse the use of RDFS - e.g. using rdf:Type to represent
> motherOf would be daft. However, I would like to be able to use
> something
> other than rdf:type to relate types and instances if I want to present
> a
> higher-order ontology to the flat-worlders. (06)
[MW] Well the whole point is that when you use rdf:class to mean, well,
class, and rdf:type to mean instance of, then you ARE using the meaning
(i.e. the semantics) of rdf. That is what they are. (07)
>
> PS - I'm not sure about where this idea of a mental model of an
> ontology
> came from. I never mentioned it, and I certainly don't have an ontology
> in
> my head. (08)
[MW] That's OK. There are some people who think like that (and there is
hopefully something in your head :-)). Fortunately you were properly brought
up, so you don't think like that ordinarily. (09)
> Of course the ontology has to be represented in some way - CL,
> RDFS, OWL, UML, EXPRESS, arse-barcodes, who cares ? It is the content
> of
> the ontology that is important - it should define its own ontic
> categories
> and its own criteria for identification. In 15926, BORO and IDEAS, the
> criteria for identity is extent. (010)
[MW] I think it is a matter of degree, and there are clearly different views
about what makes two computer files different ontologies. (011)
Regards (012)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (013)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (014)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
> West
> Sent: 05 February 2009 08:19
> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF & RDFS (was... Is there something I
> missed?)
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> I just want to push a bit and see what you really mean here.
>
> > > I will say this
> > > though - it's really easy to confuse the representation of the
> > ontology with
> > > the ontology itself.
> >
> > We need to be careful about the term "ontology" here. I understand
> the
> > term "ontology" to refer to a representation of knowledge in a form
> > suitable for automated reasoning (i.e., using some well-defined
> grammar
> > and base semantics).
> >
> > With that definition, it is not easy to confuse them -- the ontology
> IS
> > the representation. The ontology is not the knowledge, or the
> > knowledge
> > model that is in your head; it is that knowledge (model) as captured
> > in
> > the language. It is that part of the knowledge that is actually
> being
> > communicated to the automata.
>
> [MW] Right, so it is not what is in your head. But I have a file with
> my OWL
> ontology in it. I make 5 copies. How many ontologies do I have?
>
> [MW] I take my OWL file and convert it to Common Logic so that I can
> make
> exactly the same inferences from it. How many ontologies do I have?
>
> [MW] For me it is the same ontology if it is the same underlying
> theory. OK,
> if we are talking computer science, then it must be a computer
> interpretable
> representation, but otherwise I would not think of it as different if
> it was
> the same theory. So we have ISO 15926 in OWL and EXPRESS, but we do not
> see
> these as different ontologies, just different representations of the
> same
> ontology.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|