[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminologies and Ontologies

To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 18:25:10 +0300
Message-id: <3766E87B3ECD4E26AA44CB513AC69600@personalpc>
JS wrote:    (01)

"My recommendation for anyone who is trying to define anything is to check a 
good dictionary for an independent opinion."    (02)

Very true.    (03)

This is what i mentioned in the Reality Book Introduction, 
http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/chapter.aspx?titleid=28308:    (04)

"Taken as pure and abstract knowledge, Ontology is formulated as different 
as:    (05)

       the science (account) of entity (or being) in general;    (06)

       the knowledge of the most general structures of reality;    (07)

       the theory of the kinds and structures of things in every domain of 
reality;    (08)

       the study of entity types and relations;    (09)

       the most general theory concerning reality, being, or existence;    (010)

       a collection of absolute assumptions;    (011)

       the study of change;    (012)

       the science of all possible worlds and everything conceivable;    (013)

       the study of semantic values of natural and formal languages and 
ontological commitments about the world    (014)

In the context of computer science, information and communication 
technologies, an ontology is reckoned to be:    (015)

       a set of generic or philosophical concepts, axioms, and relationships 
for domain ontologies (IEEE SUO, 2000, 2003);    (016)

       a taxonomy of world terms/categories comprising definitions, 
hierarchical relations, and formal axioms (Mizoguchi, 1998);    (017)

       a set of definitions of classes and their relations, as well as 
individuals and their properties (OWL 2004; 2006);    (018)

       a catalog of the types of things (representing the predicates, word 
senses, concept and relation types of some formal language) organized by the 
class-subclass taxonomical relation (Sowa, 1997; 2000);    (019)

       metadata schemas with machine processable semantics (Horrocks, 2003);    (020)

       content theories about the kinds of  objects, their properties and 
relationships possible in a certain knowledge field  (Chandrasekaran, 
Josephson, and Benjamins, 1999);    (021)

        the total of a taxonomy and a set of inference rules or a document 
(or file) formally defining the relations among terms (Berners-Lee, Hendler 
and Lassila, 2001)"    (022)

Try and choose the best one.    (023)

Azamat    (024)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminologies and Ontologies    (025)

> On 5/3/2011 5:58 AM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>> I. "Ontology is a general theory about the world, its domain, entities
>> and relationships."
>> II. "An ontology is a general theory about some aspect of the world, its
>> subdomains, entities and relationships."
>> III. "A formal ontology is a formal theory of some aspect of world, its
>> subdomains, entities and relationships."
> My recommendation for anyone who is trying to define anything is
> to check a good dictionary for an independent opinion.
> Following is the definition from the closest dictionary at hand,
> _Merriam-Webster Ninth Collegiate_:
>  1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations
>     of being.
>  2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds
>     of existents.
> I don't know who wrote those two definitions, but they're as good as
> any and much better than most.  The editors of the best dictionaries 
> usually have associate editors for various fields.  The person who
> wrote (or reviewed rand revised) that definition was probably a
> philosopher who was knowledgeable about the field.
> In English, the word 'ontology' without a preceding article refers
> to the branch of philosophy.  With an article or other determiner,
> such as "an ontology", "Aristotle's ontology", or "Kant's ontology",
> it refers to a specific theory.
> My suggestion is to adopt the distinction from M-W.  In the discussions
> in this forum, we're usually talking about specific theories.  That
> means all of them are variations of M-W definition #2.
> I also recommend an adjective, such as 'general' if it has a broad
> scope.  If it has a more narrow scope, I would add a qualifier,
> such as 'medical', or a name, such as 'XYZ Corporation'.
> Another adjective would be 'formal' if the definitions are stated
> in some version of logic or mathematics.  By combining the adjectives,
> you could talk about a formal general ontology or an informal medical
> ontology.
> If you leave out the adjective 'formal' or 'informal', it avoids
> making a commitment about whether the terms are stated in some
> version of logic.  The default assumption is that they're not,
> but it leaves open the option of a future revision and extension
> that defines some or all of the terms in some version of logic.
> John     (026)

GIF image

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)

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