ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and individuals

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:53:45 -0500
Message-id: <50D09189.8000907@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Matthew, Pat, and David,    (01)

JFS
>> As I said in my previous note, a formal ontology is stated in logic.
>> That logic embodies the total meaning of that ontology.    (02)

MS
> That is not really true (as you know). The model theory also has a part
> to play, i.e. the intended interpretation.    (03)

I agree that the *intended* model is critical to the way human users
and developers connect the computer and its software to the world.    (04)

But the computer has no access to our intentions.  Nothing that we
put in the comment fields of an ontology will have the slightest
influence on what the computer does.    (05)

MS
> It comes as a surprise to some that the text definitions we give objects
> in an ontology are not part of the formal semantics (what can be interpreted
> by computers) but is actually part of the model theory, and tells you what
> these things were intended to represent.    (06)

Human intentions are not involved in the model *theory*.  But they
determine what kind of data people feed the computer.  If they feed it
garbage, the computer will populate the model with garbage.  Then it
will process that garbage to generate more garbage: the GIGO principle.    (07)

To be precise:  The logic of an ontology completely determines the
meaning for the *computer*.  The comments in the logic may state
the human intentions.  But they are not part of the formal ontology,
and they have no effect on what the computer does with the data.    (08)

PJH
> I for one have absolutely no idea what "instance of" means, if it is
> something which is sharply distinct from "member of" between an entity
> and a set of entities, and therefore have no idea what sense of "individual"
> is being discussed here. But my larger point is, what point is served by
> setting out to achieve any kind of consensus on this matter?    (09)

Yes.  I have been trying to say that none of those terms are relevant
to what the computer does.  The metalanguage for talking about ontology
should have a simple and direct mapping to the logic that represents it.    (010)

But as Matthew said, the *intended model* is critical for any useful
application.  I agree.    (011)

But those intentions are enforced by data entry clerks or people who
click on an iPhone app.  Their way of thinking and talking is also
disjoint from the terms being debated on this list.    (012)

DP
> So, without couching discussions into the approach/background that is
> the context, even Individual is not a clearly defined term.    (013)

Yes.  That is why I suggest that we delete it from the metalanguage
used to talk about an ontology.  Remember Quine's criterion:    (014)

    "To be is to be the value of a quantified variable."    (015)

The word 'individual' does not occur in that criterion.  And it is not
likely to occur in a menu list of an iPhone app.  Delete it.    (016)

Summary:  For specifying an ontology, our metalevel terms should have
a simple mapping to whatever logic we use.  For the *intended* models,
some software designer must relate the comment fields of the ontology
to the terms of the end user -- but that is a very different mapping.    (017)

John    (018)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (019)

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