On 4/4/2013 12:40 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
> What i have been pushing for is that we distinguish when we are referring
> to ontological concepts and when we are referring to NL concepts. A term
> in an NL is expected to be fuzzy. A term in a formal ontology should be
> expected to be far less fuzzy. (01)
Some distinction along those lines is necessary, but you can't draw
a sharp line between NL and formal. A research report written in
English about chemistry will use many chemical terms in a formal
ontology, but it will also use many other English words for which
much less formal resources like WordNet and Roget's Thesaurus are
useful. (02)
The same is true for professionals in any field. An article about
chess or bridge will use formally defined terms about those games
with as much precision as any formal ontology. But it may also
include background info about the players and informal comments
about how they play the game. (03)
In medicine, a physician may use formal terms in talking with
a colleague, and very informal terms in talking with a patient.
Even when speaking with another physician, the level of formality
can vary widely. When they're trying to diagnose a disease, they
may use very informal terms to describe the symptoms. (04)
John (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|