Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminologies and Ontologies

[Doug Skuce <drskuce@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:47 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Folks,

I'm starting a new thread because this subject cuts across numerous
threads, debates, disagreements, and confusions on this list.

We have all agreed that the words and phrases of natural languages
are related to the formal definitions of an ontology.  But many of
the disagreements arise from confusing one with the other.  I'll
start with some observations (not exhaustive, but enough to start):

 1. Whenever anybody talks about a formal definition in some version
    of logic, the thing we're discussing is a formal ontology.

DS: Like Gruber's infamous definition, which included circuit diagrams, house plans, and Beethoven's 5th,
 this use of "thing" would cover, say, the formal definition of a group in math. But I would not call a group an ontology.  But  a group HAS an ontology (formal).
Whenever people use the 'thing' word, watch out.  It carrys no meaning, since "everything is a thing".

This suggestion also implies there is no such thing as an informal ontology.  But most so-called ontologies to date have been precisely that.
So I say there are 2 disjoint kinds: formal (eg SUMO) and informal (eg Wordnet)

 2. But whenever anyone says that a formal definition in logic is
    not required, we're talking about a terminology.

DS No, we are talking informal ontology, PROVIDED the term is not isolated but is part of a VOCABULARY (all ontols provide a VOCAB) and some inter-term
relationships, starting with narrower-than, are specified. Definitions can be in good NL, logic, or both.

If you use the term `formal ontology` and the term `ontology` then either these are synonyms or there exists ìnformal ontology`..  Which do you intend?

So here is my take:
We must start with a VOCABULARY of 2 or more WORDS (which can be multi-words e.g. `formal ontology` is a multi-word. - there is no standard term for this).
If these are in a restricted domain then terminologists call these TERMS.(I have worked closely with terminologists).Thus `formal ontology is a TERM. Probably 'ontology' is not, since it is in common vocabulary, at least for educated people.
OTHERWISE  they are just LEXICAL ITEMS (ie in any dictionary as a common-sense meaning).'ontology' is such, but it can also be a term when people like us use it in a restricted sense, like the term 'oblect' in programming.
As soon as we specify inter-word relations we begin to form an ONTOLOGY. If these are specified using some form of logic, we are forming a formal ontol, else an informal ontol. Note that one could have a mixture: an ontol could be part formal and part informal. So you try to use logic, but when you are stuck you use NL.

There is one most critical relationship: narrower-broader, or more precisely, subsumption or hyponomy. Wordnet insists on this.  And a word may have more than one more general word: restricting to single parenting does not wash in the real world.  Lacking this relation, I would be loath to call a vocabulary an ontology.

Ontologists would do well to study the Explanatory Combinatory Dictionary of Igor Melchuk.  Such a dictionary is very much an ontology. http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/melcuk/

 3. But sometimes, there are confusions about what kind of definition
    is appropriate.  Many things that look formal should actually be
    called terminologies, and some terminologies can become formal
    ontologies with minor additions -- for example, the terminology
    for chemical compounds.

 4. Things like WordNet and Roget's Thesaurus group words together
    in "synsets" or clusters of closely related terms.  But the
    only definitions occur in the "glosses" or comments, which are
    stated only in natural language.  They are terminologies, not   ontologies.

DS hey are informal ontologies.    Why does everyone call them an ontology? There is a reason - everyone is not crazy.
You are conflating the term 'ontology' with 'formal ontology'

 

 5. Many terminologies about natural phenomena depend on cutting up
    a continuous range of variation into a discrete set of categories.
    Examples:  river, stream, creek, brook, rivulet; tree, bush,
    sapling; puddle, pond, lake, sea; ...  Such terms cannot have
    precise boundaries.

DS Yes, but what is your point?  What is to be done with them? Cant just ignore a large chunk of language.

 6. Other terms depend on culture and technology, which are always
    developing, mixing, and merging.  Not so long ago, there was a
    sharp distinction between a computer, a telephone, a television,
    a typewriter, and a book.  Today, the categories are blurred
    and likely to swallow up other formerly disjoint categories.

DS Ditto

 7. Finally, even when we have a formal ontology with detailed
    axioms and definitions, the formal definitions will have
    associated terms in natural languages -- examples include
    the formal definitions in mathematics, science, and
    engineering -- even some businesses, such as banking.

Of course there are terms - you cant have an ontology without a vocabuary.

Much of the talk about interoperability can be confused by any
or all of the above issues.  Some of the issues, such as the
APIs or the shape of a plug, require precise definitions.
But many of them depend on terminologies for which very loose
definitions are sufficient.

It's also important to note that some differences, such as APIs
and plugs, can become interoperable by inserting an adapter, but
others can't.

Suggestion:  Whenever disagreements arise, ask whether the cause
of the disagreement is a confusion between a terminology or a
formal ontology.

DS You have been confusing 'ontology' with one of its two meanings.  You are suggesting 'terminology' = 'informal ontology'.
But a formal ontology HAS  a vocabulary too. The term 'terminology' has a precise meaning when used by terminologists.
Please check this out. We should get this clear, because this conflation of terms is at the root of the problem

•              a lexicon is a collection of words   it can also be called a vocabulary  (eg: OED)
•              a terminology is a vocabulary used in a restricted sense in some domain.(eg mathematics, chemistry)
•              an ontology is  a terminology given formal or informal relationship definitions, at least narrower-broader.  (eg a KIF definition of some area in math.
•                          Note that math HAS a formal ontology without writing it in KIF. It is written in formal NL and can in principle be totally written in fol)

John Sowa

_________________________________________________________________
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

-- 
Doug Skuce PhD (Univ of Ottawa)

21 Torrington Pl
Ottawa K1S 4E2

613 526 3732  
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)