I don't know how you got a consensus from a couple of hours of silence. (01)
I don't think an ontology is like any of the things you described. I
already summarised what I think it is. (02)
Mike (03)
Rich Cooper wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (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)
|