[ontology-summit] Defining "ontology"

[Andreas Tolk <atolk@xxxxxxx>]

Hello,

those who read the papers I sent around earlier already know that our view on ontology is spoiled by practical applications. We look at ontologies to communicate an (IT) specification in machine-understandable ways (no only parsable, but understandable). Our idea is to support ontology-mediated composability (we distinguish between integratability of networks and protocols, interoperability of implementations, and composability of models). This is the frame in which we define ontologies as:

 

An Ontology is an attempt to formulate an exhaustive and rigorous conceptual schema within a given domain. In practice it is agreed that an ontology should contain at a minimum not only a hierarchy of concepts organized by the subsumption relation, but other 'semantic relations' that specify how one concept is related to another.  The main purpose is the definition of entities and their relationships. In other words: If a formal specification concisely and unambiguously defines concepts such that anyone interested in the specified domain can consistently understand the concept?s meaning and its suitable use, then that specification is an Ontology.

 

Look forward to hear from you what is good and bad ...
Andreas

============================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
atolk@xxxxxxx
Associate Professor/Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
242B Kaufman Hall
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529
(757) 683-4500 (voice)
(757) 683-5640 (fax)

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/    (01)