John, (01)
Thanks for the definitions of terms around the word "ontology". (02)
But may I expand on my request in the final paragraph of my last email? (03)
I had said:
" I am busy promoting ontology in a different forum at the moment. The word
seems to have some attraction there but I have discovered that, like
"semantic web", "ontology" is a sure turn-off out there to a significant
degree. So I am interested in both the history of the word and the current
experience of Ontolog folks in this labelling matter." (04)
On the historical issue, though, Pat did say (in the quote in my email) that
"I wouldn't be [in favor of introducing a new term] if the term really were
new (and I resolutely ignored it when it was first introduced) but its no
longer new, [...]". That certainly seems to be an insistence that he was
not the first to introduce the term. (05)
Then, the quote you attribute to Pat in your email below was in fact from
me. It was my own tentative exploration for a reading that rendered Pat's
statements consistent. I could surely learn from any attempt by this Forum
to spell out definitions of "logical theory" and "AI" that might clarify the
apparently diverse origins of the use of the term "ontology". (06)
Thus the main definitions my exploration invited were those to help
relevantly distinguish the "logical theory" domain from that of AI. (07)
I must confess I haven't studied Pat's 35-year-old papers on liquids and
naïve physics (though I do recall having ignorantly read about them at the
time). Nor would I characterize the present central themes of my own
current project as either 'logical theory' or AI. Ontology in that project
is both most strongly philosophical and of great technical value in IS/IT,
and the word is most useful in capturing that synergetic link. But I
recognize that I do need to gear up towards the relevant experts'
exploitation of the ever more emergent opportunities for both advanced
'logical theory' and AI in that project. (08)
Ha-ha, yes, everyone can surely agree with your observation that "For
anybody who doesn't [know what they're talking about], all bets are off." (09)
And one reason why I am still using the word "ontology", more or less in the
sense that ontologgers use it, despite my own inclinations (that I had
expressed in the sequel to the 2008 thread I had resurrected in my previous
email), is that whenever I can have a good conversation with sceptics, from
whatever field, within or outside IT, they usually end up understanding
surprisingly well at their respective levels and asking to be kept
up-to-date. (010)
But that experience doesn't resolve the marketing or propagandistic need
that lies behind my query, in the final paragraph of my previous post, as to
how fellow-ontologgers experience the problem of the ontology-sceptic. Such
a sceptic is usually ignorant, as you point out, and is adopting a very
superficial and usually self-serving position. So the obstacle to pre-empt
somehow is the first-glance though ignorant dismissal without the
opportunity for that "good conversation". For example, which of the
one-liners or elevator pitches of recent Summits seem to work best or most
often? (011)
Any takers on such queries? (012)
In the meanwhile I am busy taking my own approach to the whole issue, and
will in due course draw the Forum's attention to my project's present
deliverable. I am sure there are ontologgers who will be able to improve it
(even if by total replacement...). But I would much appreciate any
observations or suggestions in the very short term. (013)
Christopher (014)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: 05 November 2013 14:57
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Early use of the word 'ontology' in AI (015)
Christopher, (016)
In that note, Pat and Bill were discussing some issues about proper usage,
but not the question of first occurrence of the word 'ontology' in the AI
literature. Note Pat's brief summary: (017)
PH
> But the above concerns the term's use as a synonym for "logical
> theory", whereas the present thread is addressing its use in AI. (018)
In any case, there is as much confusion about the word 'theory' as there is
about 'ontology'. And the term 'logical theory' is less common (199,000
hits on Google) than 'formal theory' (300,000 hits). (019)
I'd say that every ontology is a theory. But to be an ontology, a theory
must have an additional claim about the existence of the entities that its
variables refer to. I'd also add the distinction of formal vs informal
theories and ontologies: (020)
Theory: A systematic set of assumptions and their implications. (021)
Ontology: A theory about what exists in some domain. (022)
Comment: Note that a theory or an ontology can be stated in ordinary
language. But it must be systematic. An observation that there is a robin
in your backyard is not an ontology. But a detailed theory about birds and
their characteristic properties and relations could be called an ontology. (023)
Formal theory: The deductive closure of a set of axioms stated in some
version of logic. (024)
Formal ontology: A formal theory about what exists in some domain. (025)
Comment: The adjective 'formal' as used in both philosophy and computer
science implies the use of a precisely defined notation for making
statements and drawing inferences -- i.e., a logic. (026)
I believe that these four definitions correspond quite closely to the usage
in both philosophy and computer science -- at least by people who know what
they're talking about. For anybody who doesn't, all bets are off. (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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|