I think John's suggestions are right on the money.
I would also prefer having the format of the ontology
(that is, its underlying KR) separated from the content
on the one hand and from the implementation decisions,
on the other. (01)
One can start with this criterion and then
suggest a set of features that would
categorize ontologies, e.g., (02)
by knowledge representation substrate,
by subject area,
by depth and breadth of subject area coverage,
by intended application, etc. (03)
Sergei (04)
On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:43 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: (05)
> Leo, AJ, and Deborah,
>
> Many of the proposed definitions of ontology are much too broad.
> When all the useful and important, but peripheral things are
> thrown in, the difference between ontology and KR becomes blurred:
>
> AJC> I read Deborah's paper, Leo's presentation and other
>> materials on ontology spectrum that were mentioned on this list.
>> I found it's a nice way to view how knowledge representation
>> has been evolved. If I understand correctly, the ontology spectrum
>> view implies the term "ontology" is used almost as the replacement
>> for "knowledge representation".
>
> It is important to distinguish two points
>
> 1. What is required logically.
>
> 2. What is important for other very important, but ancillary
> purposes: efficient computation, development tools, etc.
>
> The question of expressiveness is important for computational
> purposes, but its only logical effect is to determine how much
> of the subject domain can be stated or must be omitted. Although
> that may be important for many purposes, it has no effect on the
> definition of what is or is not an ontology.
>
> From a strictly logical point of view, every ontology is a theory.
> And a theory consists of two things:
>
> 1. A base logic, whose syntactic details are irrelevant. At
> the logic level, RDF, OWL, SQL, and any of the formalized
> versions of UML are all subsets of Common Logic. The very
> important practical differences between them are irrelevant.
>
> 2. A collection of axioms that define all of the nonlogical
> predicates. And by nonlogical, that means everything except
> the base operators of and, or, not, some, every, etc.
> Even arithmetic and set theory are part of the ontology.
>
> This gives a very crisp, very sharp definition. The supporting
> tools are extremely important, but it is essential to recognize
> that they are *not* part of the ontology.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (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)
|