Coming to this thread rather late, but.... (01)
On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Burkett, William [USA] wrote: (02)
> ChrisP, David --
>
> Thanks - I think you're both on the right track here wrt where I was coming
>from. I was thinking about the content of my message last night after I went
>to bed (sad, that. :-)) and realized that it wouldn't be unusual to say that
>I have two data models (written in different languages (or even the same
>language)) about the same Universe of Discourse (to use the TR9007 term). So
>saying that I have two ontologies about the same coffee-making UoD shouldn't
>be unusual and I'd like to retract my original comment about "ontology" vs
>"representation of ontology". What was behind my observation is what you
>pointed both pointed out: I was using "ontology" in a more philosophical sense
>and that this sense did, in fact, constitute requirements for the design of an
>ontology.
>
> And you're right, ChrisP: an ontology in the philosophical sense.... (03)
Question: what exactly is AN ontology in the philosophical sense? In that
sense, I have only seen the term used in the singular, to refer to a branch of
philosophy. I'm not sure how, if there were ontologIES in the philosophical
sense, how one would individuate or count them... (04)
> would be an excellent mechanism for determining the mapping between data
>structures representing information about the same UoD. (05)
... still less USE them in any mechanical sense. (06)
Pat (07)
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:49 AM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all mess up...
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Within computer science (AI), the term 'ontology' is used for the
> specification rather than what is specified.
> Tom Gruber says " In the context of knowledge sharing, I use the term
> ontology to mean a specification of a conceptualization. That is, an
> ontology is a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the
> concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of
> agents. This definition is consistent with the usage of ontology as
> set-of-concept-definitions, but more general. And it is certainly a
> different sense of the word than its use in philosophy. "
>
> Within philosophy, ontology is what is specified - e.g. an ontology is "the
> set of things whose existence is acknowledged by a particular theory or
> system of thought." (E. J. Lowe, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy)
>
> I find amusing that the Gruber CS-AI sense seems to go out of its way not to
> talk about the things that the philosophy sense does.
>
> I also find that there is sometimes some equivocation on the two senses when
> discussing interoperability.
> An ontology in the philosophical sense can be used to identify the mapping
> between data structures - the data refers to the same object.
> Sometimes people seem to be assuming that ontologies in the CS-AI sense work
> in the same way - whereas there is no guarantee that two
> 'conceptualisations' of the world will pick out the same things.
> Barry has a nice article on the use of concepts in ISO that highlights some
> of the issues http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/Wuesteria.pdf .
>
> Chris
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Price
>> Sent: 12 January 2011 11:08
>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all mess
> up...
>>
>> On 1/12/2011 5:13 AM, Burkett, William [USA] wrote:
>>> Chris, Ed:
>>>
>>> So given your interpretation, if I have (1) an ontology written in OWL
>> about, say, making a cup of coffee, and (2) another ontology written in
> CLIF
>> (or KM language of your choice) that is about the exact same making-a-cup-
>> of-coffee process, then they are two separate and distinct ontologies
> rather
>> than different representations of the same ontology? That goes against my
>> understanding conceptual modelling viz physical data modelling, and my
>> understanding of the RDF abstract model viz the various representations of
>> it. For a given set of concepts and relationships in my mind, there are
> many
>> different physical ways to represent, manifest, or write them down. Why
> are
>> ontologies different? If my coffee-making ontologies /are/ different
>> ontologies, then what do you call the set of concepts that they share and
>> represent?
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> In my experience, the set of concepts related to making a cup of coffee
> are
>> best described as 'the requirements' for the ontology. These are often
>> sketched out in a document including some UML or PowerPoint figures by an
>> SME or are drawn from an existing database or application.
>> The requirements set the scope of the ontology as well, which is also
> often
>> documented so it can be agreed (how else do you know when you're done?).
>>
>> Seems like you have in mind something far more formal wrt the set of
>> concepts/relations and so may actually have three ontologies ... where the
>> OWL and CLIF are (hopefully) equivalent ontologies to your first one and
> to
>> each other.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>> --
>> Principal Consultant
>> TopQuadrant, Inc.
>> US Phone +1 336-283-0606
>> UK Mobile +44 7788 561308
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> _
>> 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
>
> (08)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|