I agree, Doug and AJ. That's what Steve and Mike (and I myself) have
suggested: (01)
"One of the issues that we are trying to wrangle in this discussion is
perhaps to get different communities to agree to either 1) a common
definition of ontology, or 2) a typing scheme for a range of
definitions." (02)
It's doubtful we'll have (1) for the larger community, though we might
have that for the smaller logical theory community (in fact we probably
have that now, nearly). (03)
So (2) is what we are after: a typing scheme. (04)
And AJ, granularity is important. (05)
Here are some dimensions that have been raised (and, all, please add to
these or bring forth suggestions I've missed). Note that we might
decide to collapse some of these, and there are really some
cross-dependencies. And some of these are pure brainstorming at this
point. (06)
1) Informal vs. Formal
2) Expressivity of the semantic model (i.e., underlying knowledge
representation language or logic)
3) Term vs. concept (real world referent)
4) Mathematical ordering, structure, definition of the privileged
parent-child relation
5) Application focus/use cases, etc. (part of this is precision of the
service needed, e.g., metadata/topic terms for a document to aid in
broad doc topic retrieval vs. a semantic service query, specfication,
or composition)
6) Granularity (precision, scope)
7) Empirical (bottom-up) vs. Rationalist (top-down) development
methodology (i.e., arbitrary folks add or annotate terms/concepts vs. a
rigorous ontology development)
8) Human-coded vs. machine-learned/generated
9) Automated reasoning (and complexity of that, i.e., one could have
transitive closure or subsumption down a subclass graph vs.
theorem-proving)
10) Descriptive vs. prescriptive (i.e., a commonsense or
conceptually-profligate ontology vs. an ontology that specifies that
this is the way the world is)
... (07)
Thanks,
Leo (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug
Holmes
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:37 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Defining "ontology" (09)
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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (012)
|