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

[Charles D Turnitsa <CTurnits@xxxxxxx>]

John, Leo,

Concerning ontological specifications of domains such as phlogiston (and unicorns, future events, and in my particular cases, simulated entities that are required to be represented within an ontological specification to the same degree of fidelity as actual entities) it seems to me that when discussing the validity of the specification, the adherence to the formal rules (structure, satisfying constraints, etc) is of more importance than the subject matter.  After all, the ontological specification (if it is valid) gives the subject matter it's own "reality" for the specified universe of discourse.

As an analogy of what I mean, if one were to consider some of the nonsensical statements of Lewis Carroll, we can certainly say that the subject matter is absurd (in many universes of discourse), yet the statements are grammatically and syntactically correct (the forms and rules of the grammar are satisfied, albeit by nonsense or fabricated words).  In this way we understand that a "bandersnatch" is some sort of thing - it is given a reality in the universe of discourse of Mr. Carroll's poetry.  An ontological specification of that universe would feature an entity in it known as a bandersnatch (with the potential for exhibiting the "frumious" characteristic).  So long as that specification is internally consistent and follows the accepted rules for the type of specification that it is, it should be judged to be valid, regardless of the evaluator's familiarity with or acceptance of the bandersnatch.

I'm not trying to be pedantic with this comment, just trying to see if there is an accepted agreement to divide the validity of the specification from the acceptance of the subject matter.

Charles Turnitsa
Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
Old Dominion University Research Foundation

-----ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----

To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 27/01/2007 12:34AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [ontology as logical theory?] was: RE: Defining "ontology"

Leo,

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

> 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.

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.

Suggestion:

 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.

 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.

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/    (01)