ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Defining "ontology"

To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:36:41 -0800
Message-id: <C55C771F-4B6D-462E-966B-3D8C04E699B8@xxxxxxx>
Leo, John,
        So, then what should said about folksonomies, topic maps, lots of  
schema that were devised without a theory in mind, and all those  
others that seem to be used "like" these theories?  In my view, at  
least, we were trying to understand and somehow characterize the  
common ground that links all these things.
Doug    (01)

On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:    (02)

> John,
>
> I think I could construct a logically consistent theory that is
> nonsensical. Indeed it might be useful in some far possible world, but
> one nowhere near close to our own. In fact, one might even consider it
> the mission of science to find among a potentially infinite number of
> (and dare I say consistent) theories about the world, the best or  
> right
> ones (where "best" means something like fully descriptive of the
> domain, predictive, even explanatory, most concise, and bridging well
> to other known theories; I know this gets us into philosophy of
> science)?
>
> And of course, one can vary the logic too, so I guess one has to  
> always
> say "consistent in the logic used", and define consistency. And there
> are formalizations of so-called impossible worlds.
>
> Although mathematical theories are abstract, are they not a part of  
> the
> world? By part of the world, I don't necessarily mean empirically
> determinable (though even this can beg the question).
>
> So I am not convinced that (ontology = logical theory) only.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst       The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
> lobrst@xxxxxxxxx    Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
> Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
> Fax: 703-983-1379   McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
> Sowa
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:04 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Defining "ontology"
>
> Leo,
>
> I think that we agree about the basic issues, but it is
> very hard to set any limits on the domain:
>
>> Indeed, I would say an ontology is a logical theory AND
>> purports to be about the real world. I can develop a
>> nonsensical logical theory, for example.
>
> For example, all mathematical theories are purely abstract,
> and they could be applied to the real world or anything else
> imaginable.  And any plans for something that does not yet
> exist (e.g., the next new airplane by Boeing or Airbus) are
> about an imaginary entity that does not yet exist, but it might
> or might not exist at some indefinite time in the future.
>
> And once you allow ontologies for hypothetical devices, virtual
> worlds, arbitrary mathematical structures, and hypothetical
> scientific theories, it is hard to exclude anything else.
>
> Therefore, I would propose the following definition:
>
>     A formal ontology is a consistent theory expressed in some version
>     of logic that defines the types, relations, and functions that
>     characterize the entities of some domain, which may be concrete
>     or abstract, real or virtual.
>
> The requirement of a consistent theory rules out nonsense whose
> existence is impossible even in a virtual world, but it does
> allow worlds whose laws may be very different from what we
> currently consider "physics".
>
> For example, Alice's Wonderland has laws that are different
> from anything we experience in the real world, and I doubt
> that those laws are globally consistent.  But it may be possible
> to simulate a virtual world described by a global theory that
> is defined as a disjunction of locally consistent theories
> for the various episodes in Alice's adventures.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>    (03)


_________________________________________________________________
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/    (04)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>