[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminologies and Ontologies

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:24:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <58286.>
On Sat, April 30, 2011 22:11, John F. Sowa said:
> ... we have to distinguish the ontology by itself as a theory about
> the world from the issues of what somebody might want to do with it.    (01)

Note that a theory about how (some aspect of) the world works is
qualitatively different from a theory about how specific objects
interact using the more general theory.  One could distinguish the
general theory ontology from more specific knowledge bases about
separate sets of instances of the types of things which the theory
is about.    (02)

I note that Cycorp divided its large set of ontologies into several
different types, which may have a bearing on this issue.
* #$VocabularyMicrotheory -- the most general type of ontology, defines
  the classes and relations used in some domain and basic inter-
  relationships among them (such as subClass or type restrictions on
* #$TheoryMicrotheory -- has rules for the domain.  There may be
  several different Theory Microtheories for the same Vocabulary
  Microtheory.  A Theory Microtheory would use terms from a Vocabulary
  Microtheory and would define few terms of its own.  For example,
  laws (expressed by rules) would  differ from jurisdiction to
  jurisdiction and the same Physics concepts would be modeled by
  Newtonian Physics in one Theory Microtheory and by Special Relativity
   in another.
* #$DataMicrotheory -- This could also be called a Knowledge Base.  Such
  ontologies would not define new terms for classes or relations, but
  would define individual instances of those classes, such as specific
  bridges, accounts, or bills of lading.    (03)

For our purposes, we could consider Vocabulary, Theory, and Data Contexts.    (04)

> for different purposes:  (1) as a means for discovering new ,
> or (2) as an application of current knowledge for the purpose of
> designing a bridge or an airplane.    (05)

> Then a project manager who hired the engineer could take the theory
> (specification) of the bridge    (06)

The engineer would use terms from vocabulary contexts and rules from
theory contexts in designing such a bridge.  However, in creating the
specification for the bridge being designed, s/he would be creating a
data context, not modifying the existing vocabulary and theory contexts.    (07)

-- doug foxvog    (08)

> and use it in a normative sense to
> require contractors to build parts as described by the theory.
> The normative aspect does not originate in the theory itself,
> but in a contract that can be enforced in a court of law.
> John    (09)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (010)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (011)

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    (012)

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