So it looks like the consensus among those in this discussion is:
An ontology is a collection
of
classes, each with possibly
unique property values;
a few constant
instances (e.g., equilateral triangle = special instance of generalized
triangle, etc);
and
logical relationships among
the classes and instances.
And nothing else. If that satisfies everyone, then any
operational system would require more than just an ontology. It would
also require that information nobody seems to want to call ontological, like
the specific employees in the employee table.
If we accept this definition among the group of us, an ontology with a
database to back it would be about the simplest semantic system I can imagine
being useful. The database would store the instance data beyond the
ontology, but the ontology would define the classes, properties and
relationships among the entities.
But then how do we account for the diverse viewpoints going into the
system from multiple users? We all agree that each user has a unique
ontology of her personal world. We know that subjectivity gets squeezed
into the tightest databases with the strictest controls.
So how do we account for personal ontologies in a semantic system?
Curiously,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Bottoms
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:24 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Just What Is an Ontology, Anyway?
Rich,
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.
-John Bottoms
Concord,
MA
Rich Cooper wrote:
> 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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