Re: [ontology-summit] Defining "ontology"

[Charles D Turnitsa <CTurnits@xxxxxxx>]

One of the big schisms in types of ontology that I see is a difference in an ontological representation (model) that is intended to organize knowledge at the level of terms, and a model that is intended to organize knowledge at the level of meaning.

If you look at the Ontology Spectrum that was presented to the Ontolog group last year by Dr. Leo Obrst, you see a progression of ontology representation techniques, from controlled vocabularies and simple data models, up through thesauri, taxonomy techniques, up to axiomatized systems and logic based models (and beyond).  One of the big shifts I have seen is the difference in emphasis of lower level models (thesauri and controlled vocabularies, for instance) on terms, and the attempt of upper level models (axiom based systems, logic models) on definitions.  For different communities, differently focused applications, both appear equally useful, but they are very different.

From all of this, possibly an axis of differentation for ontologies can exist to show the focus of what the ontology is defining, and the depth of it's intended use.

Chuck

Charles Turnitsa
Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
Old Dominion University Research Foundation
7000 College Drive
Suffolk, Virginia 23435
(757) 638-6315 (voice)
(757) 686-6214 (fax)
cturnits@xxxxxxx

-----ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----

To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 19/01/2007 08:53AM
Subject: [ontology-summit] Defining "ontology"

Greetings,

I am concerned with the suggestions that it is possible to create a
continuum along which to organize what are known as "ontologies" in one
or more circles.

At least unless we are willing to concede that the creation of such a
continuum is itself an imposition of assumptions from an undisclosed
ontology.

I am sure there are those who would say that folksonomies are "missing"
features that are present in "formal" ontologies. Perhaps, but
folksonomies predate "formal" ontologies by several millenia and have
proven robust enough for many purposes. If the goal is to represent the
opinions of the many rather than the few, perhaps it is "formal"
ontologies that "missing" features.

I am not taking a position one way or the other. But, I do think it is
important to realize that any attempt to construct a continuum is with
an unstated choice of a winner before the the continuum is populated.

Hope everyone is looking forward to a great weekend!

Patrick

--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!



_________________________________________________________________
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/

_________________________________________________________________
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)