ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:49:37 +0200
Message-id: <F0B90F4DFEDD4085A777B38F69FF2F90@personalpc>
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

Hi Azamat,

 

What an artful dodge of the question!

 

But is an ontology *more* like a Library, in that the ?basic meaning

standards? can be retrieved, but not modified?

Stored, retrieved, exchanged, communicated, and modified as extended, specialized or generalized.

  Or is it *more* like a

Database, in that ?basic meaning standards? can be updated by

the casual user, or can be updated by automated processes

AA: Semantic standards will resist to any unjustifued update by automated processes as any syntactic web standards and protocols do. Take the example of semstandard "action". Its has many meanings and senses, from operation to battle to legal proceedings, but one primary meaning, doing, activity. In all these senses of action, the standard meaning of " doing" will resist to change.   

 

The issue I am concerned about is the leakage from set to member.

I don?t want to have a class that is defined by its own definition,

i.e., a circular interpretation. 

AA: A class should be defined by the property, a so-called intensional definition. Most extant ontologies are extensional by nature, slipping from the class to its instances, or the set to its members, as you mentioned, that's why being defective as world models.

I do want to be able to describe classes

using data (e.g., textual descriptions of things and relationships),

and I also want to be able to separate the constants from the variables

at every level.

AA: A sensible wish, the class is described by its state (property, data), the invariables make standard meanings, while the variables and their values reflect how the semantic constant could extend or radiate its primary meaning in different contexts of use. 

 

Otherwise, how can we be certain that the ontology isn?t self defining,

or if we want it to be self defining, how is that done if not through

update capabilities on the ontology?

AA: Updating is inevitable as change is a necessity, but the core meanings, as semantc codification, should be not static but stable.

 

Curiously,

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com


From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:39 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

 

Is an ontology a Library, or a Database?

Introduce an innovation, and call it a Semantic Base, Sembase, a collection of basic meanings standards, say, for the semantic interoperability of e-business processes.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rich Cooper

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:21 PM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

 

Let me rephrase:  an ontology is either defined to be:

 

A.         a LIBRARY like collection of defined classes

with associated properties of various domains

and including no data other than system constants

 

B.         a DATABASE containing descriptions of reality as

sensed, controlled and/or predicted by the ontology

and stored in semistructured forms

 

Is an ontology a Library, or a Database?

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com


From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:05 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

 

Doug, you have suggested that ontology is just the set of categories, i.e. classes, with properties and behaviors, with sets and subset relationships among them, but WITHOUT the entire framework of an operational model with full structure; not a model capable of simulating the world.  

 

Sort of like a library of classes that has been done once and for all.  Now that we have this hypothetical ontology available in the library, the classes thereof can be instantiated to make such a simulation of the world by further effort.  But that is a whole nother project. 

 

For example, a library of electrical components can be built and might contain resistors, capacitors, transistors, sensors, effectors, but no diagram of a Dolby stereo surround sound system.  Then I could build a Dolby stereo surround sound system by instantiating the right components and building a simulation of the Dolby equations as interpreted in the library of components.  Kinda indirect (easier jus to simulate the equations without using electrical analogies of the equations) but you get the analogy I?m trying to make, I hope.  

 

If an ontology is a set of classes, then it provides a library of functionality.

 

If an ontology is a set of classes with a model of a world structured on top of it, then it provides a specific application of the library, along with that library itself.  

 

Which one is it?  I vote for the library kind of definition for ontology.  Anyone have a divergent view to offer?  Surely someone can reasonably justify defining ontology as the full model including simulation.  

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com


From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Burkett, William [USA]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:23 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

 

>What George E.P. Box said about models (?All models are wrong, but some are useful.?) is true for ontologies as well.

>AA: Wrong. This is the whole point of ontology to create true models of the world, formal and informal, analytic and desciptive.

 

Andreas is right, Azamat.  An ontology is a model and inherits all the limitations of any other model of the world.  Models are at best incomplete representation of the world.  There is no such thing as a single ?true? representation of any aspect of the world.  In fact, I think ?true? is a red herring; the most desirable (if not only) objective for a model is fidelity and accuracy with respect to purpose.

 

Bill

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:40 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Cc: vasile.mazilescu@xxxxxxx; semantic-web@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

 

Responding to the seemingly eternal question: what is ontology? I suggest a simple answer, the World Desciption Framework, WDF, giving basic meanings to information, and incorporating all the generic and specific schemas and models and theories,like RDF, E-R Model, upper ontologies, CL, common metadata models, OO models, UML, etc.

What also concerns: we hotly discuss the same issues on <what ontology and semantic web might be> for a rather long time trying to set the frontier of the research, while the "periphery" is coming up with really innovative ideas (see the attached PDF Doc on the Intelligent Knowledge Management and Universal Knowledge Technology from Romania).

Azamat Abdoullaev

PS: If we are aimed at semantic interoperability, it would be good to try the concept from the exchange of information between the two closed fora, SW and Ontolog. 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:53 PM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

 

This viewpoint is not completely new to everyone. In particular in the modeling & simulation community, the idea that each model represents ? very similar to an ontology ? a viewpoint needed to address a given challenge (the model was build to help solving a problem, and the viewpoint needed to solve the problem becomes the viewpoint of the model) becomes predominant. Each model is a purposeful abstraction and simplification of reality, again similar to an ontology.

AA: Right.

What George E.P. Box said about models (?All models are wrong, but some are useful.?) is true for ontologies as well.

AA: Wrong. This is the whole point of ontology to create true models of the world, formal and informal, analytic and desciptive.

 

iIn other words: each ontology contributes a different facet to a description, and in order to get the whole picture, all facets are needed.

The only common ontology description integrating everything is the world

AA: Here is the confusion of the universe of discourse and the discourse itself. See on the WDF above.

(if we exclude imagination of what could be to make the problem a little bit easier), but we could not use the world to answer our problem in the first place, that is why we developed a simpler model for our use.

Long story short: we do not need a common ontology,

AA: that's a strategic mistake.

but we need a common way to describe our work allowing the mediation of viewpoints. As our worldviews differ in scope (what we look at), resolution (detail we are looking at), and structure (categorization of what we are looking at), these mediations will not always be loss-free, but that is part of the nature of the beast.

It seems like we are starting to come to very similar observations and reach mappable conclusions in different scientific domains.

 

Andreas

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Burkett, William [USA]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:30 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?

 

Bravo, Rich ? this is the first time I?ve heard anyone in any of these ontology/SUO forums stress so strongly the human-factor aspect of data semantics.   I?ve been trying to argue this point for years but to most CS-trained individuals it just falls on deaf ears.   I even have a nice little catchy name for the theory:  ?Data Is Speech?.    As you suggest, there will be multiple ontologies (or whatever you want to call them) to formally represent different views of the word and they will need to be quickly adaptable to changing business requirements .  And the one significant missing and way way underserved ingredient is mapping and translation technology. 

 

Bill



_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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