ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] ontology as logical theory?

To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:10:19 -0600
Message-id: <4E448AE9-A2B2-40BC-9364-56AF66F79EFE@xxxxxxxx>
> [Against my better judgement, I enter the fray]    (01)

Rash fellow.    (02)

> Chris-
>
> An erudite argument, as usual.  But here is a logical theory:
>
> (forall (x) (if (P x) (Q x)))
> (P a)
>
> This is the kind of logical theory you find all the time as  
> examples in papers by
> logicians and by computer scientists who study properties of  
> logical languages and
> algorithms for reasoning.  They don't give a hoot for what it means  
> (what it refers
> to) - it is an *example* of a bit of logical syntax that lets me  
> prove something
> about P, Q, and a. (and, in fact, if you ask them what P means,  
> they will say "what
> difference does it make?")
>
> Accepting ontology == logical theory trivializes ontology, IMHO.    (03)

Yes, it trivializes the *word* in order to get folks to focus on  
*quality* -- it's so much more productive to focus on what's good/bad/ 
right/wrong about an ontology than to try to figure out some way of  
throwing a semantic fence around JUST the right logical theories that  
deserve the honorific title.  Dude, it's a waste of time!    (04)

> It is exactly the
> kind of thing I find myself fighting against time and time again.   
> It is the reason
> the FOIS conference exists.  I think its worth it to try and come  
> up with something
> better.    (05)

Really, Chris, is THAT what you're fighting?  Aren't you fighting  
*bad* ontologies and *bad* ontological engineering?  Give folks the  
word and teach them how to create *good* ontologies -- by example, by  
isolating general, qualitative principles of good practice, etc.    (06)

> When writing standards, you can make use of words like "must"  
> "should" and "may" to
> convey less-than-perfect definition.    (07)

But the problem, by my admittedly dim lights, is that you won't get  
anything like definition at all.  The idea of writing a standard for  
a notion of "ontology" that builds in vaguely specified qualitative  
features is like the idea of writing a standard for composing good  
music.  It's a category mistake; we're not talking about a definable,  
standardizable thing here (at least, not in any useful sense).   
Standards can and should be written for things like logical languages  
and musical notation.  Beyond that it's a matter of teaching/learning  
good practice.  People start out writing bad music, but it's music  
all the same.    (08)

ChrisM    (09)


_________________________________________________________________
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/    (010)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>