Ed: "What makes written knowledge an "ontology"
is that the language has a
grammar and an interpretation of the
grammatical constructs that is suitable
for automated
reasoning."
CM: "what makes written knowledge an ontology is that
it is expressed in a
logic (i.e., a formal language + model
theory) with a complete proof
theory."
JS: "the field of
ontology is devoted to the study, analysis, and
specification of
the kinds of entities that exist, did exist, or may exist."
Meshing
them up, a working definition may appear:
Ontology is "devoted to
the study, analysis, and specification of the kinds
of entities
and relationships, expressed as the formal symbolism (language)
suitable for machine reasoning".
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <
sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"[ontolog-forum]" <
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent:
Friday, October 23, 2009 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just
What Is an Ontology, Anyway?
> Ed, Adrian, and
Chris,
>
> I agree that is a necessary
condition:
>
> EB> What makes written knowledge an
"ontology" is that the language
> > has a grammar and an
interpretation of the grammatical constructs
> > that is
suitable for automated reasoning.
>
> But there are many
kinds of knowledge that would not qualify as
> an
ontology. A database full of low-level facts is suitable
>
for automated reasoning, but it is not an ontology. The
>
knowledge of how to ride a bicycle is not an ontology,
> even if
it were translated to a form that could be used
> for some kind
of reasoning.
>
> AW> For modern usage, I'd rate Ed
Barkmeyer's definition
> > of 'ontology' as the most
satisfactory so far.
>
> It would be fine, provided that
the kind of knowledge
> needed for an ontology were
distinguished from other
> kinds that are not
ontologies.
>
> CM> what makes written knowledge an
ontology is that it is expressed
> > in a logic (i.e., a
formal language + model theory) with a
> > complete proof
theory.
>
> That is more precise, but it still requires
the criteria that
> distinguish an ontology from other kinds of
knowledge.
>
> In order to clarify the issues, I'd like to
cite Tom Gruber's
> definition:
>
> "An
ontology is the formalization of a conceptualization."
>
>
That's a good definition of the conceptual schema work of
> the
1970s. It focuses on how people think and how a database
>
(or a knowledge base) can be organized in a way that
represents
> what people think or say in a way that a computer
can process.
>
> But by definition, the field of ontology
is devoted to the
> study, analysis, and specification of the
kinds of entities
> that exist, did exist, or may exist.
An ontology about
> bicycles would include the fact that they're
designed for
> people to ride. But it would not include
knowledge or
> conceptualization about specific bicycles or
about how
> people learn to ride them.
>
> In short,
we should distinguish ontology from knowledge.
> If there is no
difference, then I suggest that we drop the
> more esoteric term
'ontology' and use the word 'knowledge'
> or
'conceptualization'. If there is a difference, then
> it
should be stated explicitly.
>
> John
Sowa
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxShared
Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1JTo
Post: mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx