Christopher Menzel wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Adrian Walker wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> For modern usage, I'd rate Ed Barkmeyer's definition of 'ontology' as the
>most satisfactory so far.
>
> +1
>
> Here it is:
>
> 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.
> (01)
Thank you, gentlemen, but to give credit where it is due, what I wrote
is a paraphrase of a definition of "strong ontology" from Leo Obrst,
approximately 2005. (02)
And Chris offers another: (03)
> Otherwise (if less colorfully) put, 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.
> (04)
-Ed (05)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (06)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (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)
|