ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO)

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:50:33 -0000
Message-id: <009e01d0187e$dd689930$9839cb90$@gmail.com>
Dear John,    (01)

MW
> "The term THING means the same as the word thing." This is not 
> actually circular. The terms in your ontology are in principle
> labels without any inherent meaning at all.   Try telling
> a computer otherwise.    (02)

I agree.  But that is a primary reason why we should *STOP* using the label
'Thing' for the top of an ontology.  
[MW>] No, it's a reason not to get exercised about the name for the top
category in an ontology, even if it is thing (I prefer entity too).    (03)

The quoted comment means nothing to a computer, but people who know nothing
about logic get the hopelessly misleading idea that it means something.
[MW>] Well even many who practise ontology think the name means something,
never mind the definition, and certainly most people aren't going to
understand forall(x) thing(x). So whilst a good text definition is better
than a bad one, a bad one is not fatal.    (04)

As Pat Hayes noted, there's huge amount of confusion about ontology in
nearly every published ontology.  FIBO is an example, but nearly all the
others are just as bad or worse.
[MW>] I agree. But in providing constructive criticism we need to start by
understanding the purposes of the ontology in question, and then suggest the
improvements that will have the maximum impact in supporting those purposes.    (05)

People who should know better have been using the label 'Thing' for the top
of an ontology because it gives a "comfy feeling" to those who know nothing
about logic.
[MW>] See above. It really doesn't matter, comfy feeling or no. Not that I
can say I have noticed this effect. Indeed, most of the times I've been
trying to coax a group towards a decision on a term, they have been
disappointed that there is such little choice (there really is only entity
and thing that come close). Thing is usually chosen because it is not a posh
word.    (06)

But that is an open invitation to *DISASTER*.  Don't ever give people a
comfy feeling about something they don't understand.
[MW>] No. It is part of a journey you need to take people on.    (07)

That is why I recommend the label 'Entity'.  It alerts the readers that
they're stepping outside the realm of comfy words into highly technical
terminology.
[MW>] A perfectly good name, and my preference, but I would certainly never
try to mandate its use.    (08)

It's not hard to tell people that the word 'entity' means "anything that
exists or may exist".  But as William and Adrian noted, that is *not* how
the word 'thing' is used in English:
[MW>] It falls within the range of its uses though.    (09)

Regards    (010)

Matthew West                            
Information  Junction
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177. 
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
SG6 2SU.    (011)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (012)

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