On 12/11/2012 8:25 AM, Nicola Guarino wrote:
> Alex,
>
> there is already a term for (2): *knowledge base*. (01)
I agree. Why has a specific formalism terminology (namely OWL's TBox,
ABox, ...) become standard? There have been generic names (Schema,
Database, Knowledge Base, ...) independent of any specific formalism -
as it should be. Especially when the formalism in question has evolved
out of a yet unproven fad when it concerns "real-life" scalable apps. (02)
My (CDN) $0.02 ... (03)
-hak (04)
> Nicola
>
> On 11 Dec 2012, at 17:10, Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Nicola reminds me 2 different definitions of ontology:
>> 1. *ontology = Tbox*.
>> 2. *ontology = Tbox+Abox*.
>> I prefer (2) as it keeps all knowledge together:-)
>> And it looks like Sandro keeps in mind (1).
>>
>> Alex (05)
--
http://www.hassan-ait-kaci.net/contactme.html (06)
hak.vcf
Description: Vcard
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|