[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology modules and namespaces

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:19:28 -0500
Message-id: <DABFB6E3-B59A-484D-B7FD-4E7CE8905C14@xxxxxxxx>
On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Ian Bailey wrote:
> Hi John,
> I don't think that was the topic of the original question, unless I
> misunderstood ? I agree having multiple representations of the  
> ontology is
> vital, but I think a more sophisticated approach is required to deal  
> with
> multiple communities and systems using different names and  
> identifiers for
> things.
> Getting back to your message...I suspect IDEAS can tick most of your  
> boxes
> already:
> 1) We develop IDEAS in UML, strictly profiled to the IDEAS ontic  
> categories
> 2) We can export the UML model into RDFS/OWL, XSDs (for the US DoD)  
> and
> We've not had any requirement for CL. I'm not really convinced that  
> logic
> notations are the best way to express ontologies. Personally, I find  
> them
> incomprehensible...    (01)

Small wonder then that you are unconvinced.  Surely you have no  
grounds for judging the value of a sound logical foundation for  
expressing ontologies if you are ignorant of logic.  Surely the  
appropriate response when you don't understand something is to learn  
about it, not formulate doubts about it a priori (let alone express  
them publicly).    (02)

> but I realise logicians love their squiggles and AI folks love their  
> parentheses.    (03)

Really, this is silly; is it similarly the case that physicists love  
their dx's and dy's?  The issue has nothing whatever to do with  
surface forms like "squiggles" and parentheses (there are logical  
languages that look very much like English, for example) and  
everything to do with finding a well-defined medium for expressing  
knowledge whose semantic foundation is clear and unambiguous so that,  
e.g., you know with certainly when one statement follows from another  
or whether two statements are consistent.  These are the sorts of  
things we need to know to do robust, computer-assisted knowledge  
sharing.  If that's not your goal, then perhaps you and yours can get  
by with ordinary English.  For everyone else, formally specified  
logical languages are no more avoidable than is the calculus for the  
physicist.    (04)

Chris Menzel    (05)

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    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>