[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontolog

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:03:58 -0500
Message-id: <1293314638.1718.4209.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cecil,    (01)

On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 09:27 -0800, Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS wrote:
> Pavithra,
> I agree with John and challenge you to build a useful, shareable
> ontology without a foundation of well defined and structured
> terminology.
>     (02)

Rather odd to see begging the question in a discussion of logic. Yes?    (03)

In addition to not defining terms that would make an intelligible
response possible.     (04)

> This is part of a diagram  that I have used to show that foundation
> and you cannot leave out any part of these components and end up with
> an ontology that you can do sound reasoning across, in my opinion.
>     (05)

Physicians did not do "sound reasoning" across medical reports in the
absence of a "public health reference ontology"??    (06)

John Sowa captures an unspoken part of the disagreement when he says:    (07)

> But if you aren't using logic, you don't have anything that
> can be combined with an inference engine.     (08)

But the need to use an inferencing engine is surely a requirement for a
particular context/project.    (09)

Yes?    (010)

I think part of the problem is an admixture of marketing claims with
statements about formal logic (in the sense ChrisM used the phrase),
about which there is little disagreement.    (011)

For example, I don't think there is much disagreement that there are any
number of things called "ontologies" (by people other than ChrisM) that
ChrisM and others would say violate the precepts of formal logic.    (012)

The SOA Ontology for example.    (013)

Now, what ChrisM and others would like to say is that there are
advantages if your ontology does not violate the precepts of formal
logic.     (014)

But I hear (and perhaps they actually say it this way, would have to
ask) them as saying: The only things that qualify as ontologies are
things that do not violate the precepts of formal logic.    (015)

John Sowa does the same thing when he claims that if something does not
meet the requirements of formal logic, it is a terminology and perhaps
not a good one at that.    (016)

But those are marketing claims to sell good and services (hence, not
everyone can create an ontology).     (017)

Which should not be confused with statements about formal logic.     (018)

Hope you are having a great day!    (019)

Patrick    (020)

Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)    (021)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
Newcomb Number: 1    (022)

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    (023)

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