Re: [ontolog-forum] Computer science ontology vs. philosophical ontology

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ed,

Thank you, that is very well said. 

 I used the word "behavior",  which is the processing aspect of the program or subroutine.  Probably "processing"  is a better word.    Initially  we agreed on both data and processing as part of Ontology.   

I agree with your explanation  about knowledge engineering as well reasoning etc..    This  group is intense about logic, axioms etc.. and this has been discussed before.   

Software engineers use terms  like,  various Life Cycle methodology,   Analysis, design,  implementation, modeling  techniques for data and processing  for programs and not necessarily, use the term " axioms" .  Slightly different terminology used .   
   
Thanks
Pavithra Kenjgie 

On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:19 AM, "Barkmeyer, Edward J" <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Pavithra Kenjige wrote:

 

> Computer Science Ontology is the abstract representation of Philosophical Ontology and real word things 

> with a specific purpose ie to  develop systems and simulate behavior of real world things relevant to the

> system by modeling them.

 

With all due respect, Pavithra, I would have said:

 

“Data modeling” is the abstract representation of real world things  with a specific purpose, i.e., to  develop systems and simulate behavior of real world things relevant to the system by modeling them. 

 

“Knowledge engineering” is a special case of “data modeling”, where the systems in question involve computational implementations of “reasoning” and “logic”, and the model itself includes the formalization of some part of the behavior as “axioms”.  “Computer Science Ontologies” are artifacts of the knowledge engineering process – they are the models intended as data for use by the reasoning software.  In a certain sense, they are the “programs” or the “subroutines” for the reasoning engine, in much the same way that Excel spreadsheets are data and programs for a tabular computation engine.

 

I don’t expect that the Computer Science community in general will agree with the above terminology, but it is at least necessary to sort out those concepts and give them names.  The data model in every software program since 1955, even when an entity was expressed as Block Ended by Symbol, is an “abstract representation of real world things with the specific purpose ... to develop [that] system.”  Using “ontology” with that meaning does not advance the discipline.

 

That said, I intend to remain silent on the subject of the relationship of computational ontologies to philosophical ontology.  To me, that is “How is a raven like a writing desk?” 

 

-Ed

 

 

--

Edward J. Barkmeyer                     Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx

National Institute of Standards & Technology

Systems Integration Division, Engineering Laboratory

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8260             Work:   +1 301-975-3528

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8260             Mobile: +1 240-672-5800

 

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,

 and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."

 

 

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pavithra
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:04 PM
To: Simon Spero; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Computer science ontology vs. philosophical ontology again

 

Simon,

Computer Science Ontology is the abstract representation of Philosophical Ontology and real word things  with a specific purpose ie to  develop systems and simulate behavior of real world things relevant to the system by modeling them.  

 

 

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:36 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In  computer science,  one can prove the existance of a thing by it's attributes ( what it consists of) ,  associations ( relation to other things)  and actions  ( what it does and behavior ) !    And there are real things and imaginary things.   

Philosophically, an ontology should do the same, prove the existence of something. 

 

Your understanding of philosophical ontology and of computer science cannot, then, be distinguished.

 

Simon

 

_________________________________________________________________
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)