Michael et al., (01)
Thank you. Yes ... we will definitely need to build out that (shared
understanding in an) ontology of ontologies, at least informally,
before we could get to the goal of this summit. (02)
A major difference this time, is that rather than for anyone community
to be telling others who are also using the term 'ontology' that "You
are not talking about an Ontology, Ontology is actually xxxxx, you
should use the term 'yyy' instead ..." we'd rather collect what each
community (formal ontologists, semantic web folks, web 2.0 netizens,
... etc.) mean when they use the term, and then, somehow, device some
mean so that the world-at-large doesn't get confused (when this same
term is used to mean different things.) (03)
Thank you very much, Michael, for pointing us to the Wang and Gangami
papers ... great stuff! (04)
Regards. =ppy
-- (05)
On 1/22/07, Denny, Michael <dennym@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Coming late to this dialog, I am wondering if it has already been suggested
> that the group take on the project of constructing a domain ontology of
> ontology to specify formally what it believes constitutes and differentiates
> ontologies. As a possible direction, I can imagine such an effort would
> help pin down, converge and organize the diverse sentiments of the group
> and, at the same time, encourage us to practice what we preach. For
> example, the group might begin such an undertaking by choosing to restrict
> the ontology domain to computational ontology as that breed of ontology that
> is expressly machine readable and intended to be used in computing systems.
> Such a domain restriction should serve not to exclude factors of
> philosophical ontology as much as specifically include factors of
> computability like language expressivity, language and vocabulary mapping,
> logic computing, data typing, algorithms for interpretation, and instance
> storage and serialization features. Further, the topical nature of the
> ontology in terms of its domain boundaries and level of focus, its mission
> (or characteristic queries), and its relation to other bounded domains
> provides a candidate third leg for this ontology of ontology device.
>
>
>
> Possible beginnings of an ontology of ontology exist at
> http://www.charlestoncore.org/ont/2005/08/o3.html thanks to
> Xiaoshu Wang, and at
> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/eon2006/eon2006gangemietal.pdf
> thanks to Aldo Gangemi et al, and I am sure elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Now, the hard part, of course, will be deciding the kind of ontology an
> ontology of ontology should be. Whatever form it takes, however, I suspect
> it would represent a tangible contribution to the ontology community.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ==========================
>
> Michael Denny, Ph.D.
>
> Principal Ontologist
>
> Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC)
>
> 100 CTC Drive
>
> Johnstown, PA 15904
>
> Phone: (814) 248-7518 Mobile: (814) 322-8721
>
> Email: dennym@xxxxxxxxxx URL: www.ctc.com
>
> ========================== (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|