[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ali H <asaegyn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 18:39:18 -0400
Message-id: <CADr70E0sWQL-KSFmE9Pv24tJVuRhK3CWQYRxN1OLZc9ZWC-r-Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hello all,

I know this is a topic that has been tread over many years and many times, but I recently came across this statement from Brian C. Smith in [1]:

Any mechanically embodied intelligent process will be comprised of structural ingredients that a) we as external observers naturally take to represent a propositional account of the knowledge that the overall process exhibits, and b) independent of such external semantic attribution, play a formal but causal and essential role in engendering the behavior that manifests that knowledge.

Why is this definition never proffered when discussing "what is an ontology"?

It seems to me that those in the field of ontology focus on (a). 

Do most (formal) ontologists consider Ontology to be (a), and not (b)? If so, why not?

Lastly, I understand that in pantheon of AI sciences, Ontology is often suggested as a sub-discipline of KR - yet why is there such little cross over from KR to Ontology - or am I simply misinformed (c.f. FOIS vs KR or CommonSenseReasoning as part of AAAI etc) ?

[1] Smith, Brian C. (1985). "Prologue to Reflections and Semantics in a Procedural Language". In Ronald Brachman and Hector J. Levesque. Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann. pp. 31–40. 

(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>