|
Kingsley wrote:
"And therein lies the problem: why do we have to choose the best one devoid
of context? "Horses for courses" as they say back in the UK. There is no
universal best one :-)"
Agree.
Each good definition, as well
as classification, has its strength and weaknesses.
It comes from different ways we define words
or classify things. We construct definitions by reference to:
1. genus and differentia
2. causes (genesis, origin, material cause,
formal cause, final cause, or productive cause)
3. principal features
4. functions
5. dichotomy or division
6. component parts
7. extrinsic signs
8. purposes or interests, etc.
On the positive side, there are two broad types
of ontological definitions/classifications: real definitions and
nominal definitions. The nominal one is mostly arbitrary, relating
substance with accident, while the real definitions/classifications tend to
reflect/represent the nature of things as adequately as possible. I
believe, it could be used as a criterion of best choice.
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Terminologies and Ontologies
On 5/3/11 11:25 AM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
JS wrote:
"My recommendation for anyone who is trying to
define anything is to check a good dictionary for an independent opinion."
Very true.
This is what i mentioned in the Reality Book
Introduction, http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/chapter.aspx?titleid=28308:
"Taken as pure and abstract knowledge, Ontology is formulated as
different as:
the science (account)
of entity (or being) in general;
the
knowledge of the most general structures of reality;
the theory of the kinds and
structures of things in every domain of reality;
the study of entity types and
relations;
the most general theory
concerning reality, being, or existence;
a collection of absolute assumptions;
the study of change;
the science of all possible worlds
and everything conceivable;
the study
of semantic values of natural and formal languages and ontological
commitments about the world
In the context of computer
science, information and communication technologies, an ontology is reckoned
to be:
a set of generic or
philosophical concepts, axioms, and relationships for domain ontologies
(IEEE SUO, 2000, 2003);
a taxonomy of
world terms/categories comprising definitions, hierarchical relations, and
formal axioms (Mizoguchi, 1998);
a
set of definitions of classes and their relations, as well as individuals
and their properties (OWL 2004; 2006);
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);
metadata schemas
with machine processable semantics (Horrocks, 2003);
content theories about the kinds
of objects, their properties and relationships possible in a certain
knowledge field (Chandrasekaran, Josephson, and Benjamins, 1999);
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)"
Try and choose the best one.
And therein
lies the problem: why do we have to choose the best one devoid of context?
"Horses for courses" as they say back in the UK.
There is no
universal best one :-)
Kingsley
Azamat
----- 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
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
_________________________________________________________________
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|