Ed, (01)
The following definition is about as neutral and non-controversial as
you can get. All other definitions of 'ontology' are special cases. (02)
JFS, as derived from definitions in the Free Merriam-Webster online:
>> 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 (03)
EJB
> If this were the definition we use in the Ontolog Forum, I would
> unsubscribe immediately. (04)
I cannot see why you or anybody else would object to it as a general
statement that subsumes all the definitions anyone has proposed. (05)
JFS
>> 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 (06)
EJB
> So now we are not using the dictionary definition, and we are assigning
> a very different semantic interpretation to "kinds of things that have
>existence". (07)
This is just a specialization of the general definition. There are
only two differences: (1) delete the option "the nature of existence",
which is more philosophical than computational, and (2) add the point
that it is specialized for a particular application domain. (08)
In this forum, we have been talking about ontologies for particular
domains for years. I don't know what you object to. (09)
JFS
>> Note that neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster's nor the long tradition
>> in philosophy require theories to be stated in formal logic. (010)
EJB
> So, the idea that "computational ontology" is based on "formal logic"
> is not a part of your conceptualization of "computational ontologies". (011)
I've been teaching logic for many years, and I know very well that
most programmers don't know how to express themselves in logic. (012)
In fact, Doug Lenat said that his standard practice is to give
all prospective hires a short exam of a few sentences in English,
which they have to translate to FOL. There are no ambiguous or
tricky sentences, and they don't go beyond FOL. (013)
One prospective hire was a professor of logic. Doug apologized
for giving him such a trivial exam. But the professor flunked.
He explained "that's not what we teach our students." (014)
Unfortunately, he was right. (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|