ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [ontology as logical theory?] was: RE: Defining "o

To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:34:14 -0500
Message-id: <45BAE456.3000509@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Leo,    (01)

I sympathize with your concerns, but a definition should be
something that can be checked for compliance with a minimal
amount of effort.    (02)

 > One potential example: phlogiston theory. I think that it is
 > or can be a logical theory, even today. But is it an ontology?
 > Nowadays, I would say no, because it doesn't represent our best
 > science of what is real. Was it an ontology at one time: yes,
 > quite possibly.    (03)

By that criterion, the question of compliance would become
a research issue, which in the case of phlogiston took
many decades to resolve -- or in the case of an engineering
plan, many years to build.    (04)

Suggestion:    (05)

  1. The definition of the word "ontology" should enable
     anyone who understands the definition to recognize an
     ontology by examining the specification itself, not
     by years of research to find or build.    (06)

  2. To distinguish various kinds of ontology, that word
     could be qualified by any number of adjectives, such as
     good, bad, hypothetical, proposed, vacuous, etc.    (07)

John    (08)




_________________________________________________________________
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/    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>