To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:26:51 -0800 |
Message-id: | <1424363211.99665.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Erick, I like your proposal to use "knowledgebase" as, in effect, referring to the union of a set of statements about tokens with a set of statements about types. But if I recall from my reading, several years ago, of Brachman and Levesque's book Knowledge Representation, I suspect that the standard use of the term "knowledgebase" (i.e. the use by such experts as those authors, Sowa, and others) is that a knowledgebase is a set of statements about tokens, but embedded in a logic that can be used to carry out inferences on those statements, as relational DBMSs cannot do. (On the other hand, how could deductive inferences about relationships among tokens be carried out unless the formalism included second-order statements about those relationships (such as reflexive, symmetric, transitive), expressed either as rules of inference for the formalism, or as axioms of a specific
system?) And I don't want to use "knowledgebase" in that "union" sense of the term if there is already a well-established accepted use which differs from that. Perhaps John can enlighten us. On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 7:07 AM, Erick Antezana <erick.antezana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: All, I feel a bit guilty of having started this thread with such a "controversial" question about the "grey line" (if any) between ontologies and master data. Anyway, the view I had before this thread actually coincided exactly with Thomas Johnston's
which I used to translated into a language that some managers could digest so that my projects could get budgeted... I still share the same thinking as Thomas with some adjustments as Matthew elaborated (e.g. ontologies can hold types/kinds + instances; although I prefer to call those things: knowledgebases or application ontologies depending on the listener...) as well as the notion of having a continuum between both artefacts (i.e. ontologies and MD). I totally agree with Kingsley and John about loosing focus while discussing about (buzz)words meanings; nevertheless, I believe that Matthew could still illuminate us by elaborating his position... cheers, Erick On 18 February 2015 at 15:27, Kingsley
Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On 2/17/15 9:29 PM, Thomas Johnston wrote: _________________________________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies, Thomas Johnston |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies, David Price |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies, Erick Antezana |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies, John F Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |