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

["Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>]

Charles,

 

You come down on the side of "logical theory" according to your description. It's not a bad place. I would say it's a necessary place. But it's not (necessarily) a sufficient place for high end (type N) ontology. ;)

I agree we need a bottom formal rung, but don't agree that that rung is the last step. As in science, a solid, perspicuous, consistent theory is a good thing. But it should ground itself well in reality, I think.

 

One of the issues is whether a logical universe of discourse (a logical and often linguistic notion) is really the same as an ontological universe. Personally, as I've argued (as do many), logic /== onto-logic.

 

A universe of discourse is not necessarily THE universe. I know, it's very difficult to judge that. Given that there may be infinitely many universes, how can we ever judge any given universe (our universe) to be the one we are in? Loglc would lay out, constitute the apparatus to allow us to formalize all those potential universes and their predicates and maybe their individuals, and compare universes and their predicates, maybe even describe the respective closeness of those universes. But logic won't tell us anything about the universe we are in. To me, that's what ontology and science does. Are you in the bandersnatch universe? I don't know. Sometimes I think I am.

 

A logical theory (if anything) should be consistent (if not necessarily provably so). But let's assume your bandersnatch theory is logically consistent. What does that tell you? To me, science (avoiding ontology for a few seconds here) can raise potentially an infinite number of logically consistent theories to describe reality ( you could say "explain", but "explanation" will get you into deep wheel-spinning): which is right? Logic can't tell you. Maybe philosophy of science will give you indications. But in all cases, I'd submit, that description/explanation will ground on some notion of ontology, the things that are and the ways that they are.

 

If you are not trying to be pedantic, you are probably arguing at the wrong forum. ;)

 

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
 

 

---

From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles D Turnitsa
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:03 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [ontology as logical theory?] was: RE:Defining "ontology"

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)