Ed, (01)
> We have a major failure to communicate, and I think that
> failure is important to this Forum. (02)
I agree. My position is that we should use words in a way that falls
within the scope of their definitions in good dictionaries, such as
the OED and the Mirriam-Webster versions. (03)
ISO normally uses the OED, but I'll cut & paste definitions from
the Free MW, which is available online. (04)
Definition of 'ontology' from the Free MW:
> 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 things that
>have existence (05)
Definition #2 is the one we use in this forum. But we need to check
the meaning of 'theory':
> 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
> 2 : abstract thought : speculation (06)
Combining definition #2 of 'ontology' with definition #1 of 'theory':
> a particular analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
> about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence (07)
To specialize this definition for computer applications, delete the
option "the nature of being" and add "in some domain of application":
> a particular analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
> about the kinds of things that have existence in some domain of application (08)
Note that neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster's nor the long tradition
in philosophy require theories to be stated in formal logic. Any
analysis would have to be done *before* it could be written down.
And note that Socrates was one of the most influential philosophers
in history. He had lots of theories about what exists, but he never
wrote them down. (09)
Therefore, it seems that my definition falls within the scope of the
definitions in good English dictionaries. The adjective 'implicit'
emphasizes the point that it's not stated in writing: (010)
JFS
> 1. Informal & implicit: The ontology is informal and not stated in
> any document. The fact that the implicit ontology is in the head
> of the programmer who wrote the code can be determined by asking
> him or her. (See Plato for the method of inquiry.) With suitable
> software, the implicit ontology can often be discovered by
> analyzing the programs and the kinds of data they process. (011)
EJB
> It is my position, and I hope that of the knowledge engineering community
> generally, that there is no such thing as an "implicit ontology". (012)
We'd have to do a study of usage in the KE community. John McCarthy
was one of the earliest adopters in the 1970s, but it didn't become
common until the mid 1980s. My 1984 book, Conceptual Structures, used
the term, and 13,000 copies were sold. Neither of us said that an
ontology had to be written before it could be called an ontology. (013)
Doug Lenat introduced the term 'ontological engineering' in the late
1980s. The ontologies he had in mind were written in CycL, but I
believe that he would admit that the analysis had to be done before
it could be written in CycL. (014)
EJB
> I would argue that encoding the knowledge in natural language
> text is not an "ontology", (015)
That is contrary to the usage in both philosophy and AI. Whitehead
was a pioneer in formal logic, but he did *not* use logic to state
the ontology of his magnum opus, _Process and Reality_. In fact,
he explicitly said that the analysis required for ontology had to
be done *before* you could write it down in any notation for logic. (016)
In his writing about ontology, John McCarthy also did the analysis
in ordinary English. He didn't write any ontology in logic until
*after* he stated the basic principles in English. (017)
EJB
> I would also point out that it is now becoming a practice to make
> formal ontologies of an application domain after the fact of the
> application development, e.g., for an integration or enhancement
> process. (018)
I'm glad that you now support my point. The ontology of facts and
relationships were encoded in the application code *before* it was
formally written down as an explicit ontology. (019)
EJB
> NIST personnel have an instinctive reaction to casual use of the word
>"normative". (020)
That's a good practice. Definition of 'normative' from the free MW:
> 1 : of, relating to, or determining norms or standards <normative tests>
> 2 : conforming to or based on norms <normative behavior> <normative judgments>
> 3 : prescribing norms <normative rules of ethics> <normative grammar> (021)
Definition #3 is the one to use. (022)
EJB
> Many of us would be pleased to know that knowledge engineering has reached
> the stage of being the subject of legislation. (023)
Definition of 'legislation' from the free MW:
> 1 : the action of legislating; specifically : the exercise of the power
> and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority
> by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or
> other organization
> 2 : the enactments of a legislator or a legislative body
> 3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body (024)
By definition #1, legislation requires the power to make rules, but it
need not be a state that does the legislation. It can be an NGO, such
as ISO, or it can be a corporation that establishes *business rules*
that govern the procedures carried out by their employees or computers. (025)
Mathew's "integrating ontologies" had normative power for Shell and
its affiliates because the Shell executives exercised their power
to legislate it as a set of business rules. (026)
I agree that this exercise has been useful to clarify the issues. (027)
John (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
|