Rich, (01)
Sounds reasonable. After all, I can point to a set of
encyclopedias on the shelf and say, "That's my encyclopedia".
But in what way is it more than just 32 bindings A-Z?
There definitely is a sense in which an ontology is just a
set of leather bound books...at least for some. My interests
go beyond that. (02)
-John Bottoms
Concord, MA (03)
Rich Cooper wrote: (04)
> 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
>
> http://standardontology.com
>
> 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 -----
>
> From: Tolk, Andreas <mailto:atolk@xxxxxxx>
>
> To: '[ontolog-forum] ' <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
> (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)
|