Dear Chris, (01)
>
> > Ok, but then why use the term "ontology"? If you are right,
> let's just
> > use the term "logical theory"?
>
> I don't think that would follow. For one thing, I'm only proposing
> that "logical theory" is the only viable *definition* of "formal
> ontology". (02)
MW: I think I would want to add to an ontology being a "logical theory".
I think I would at least want to say that "a formal ontology is a
logical theory with an intended interpretation". (03)
MW: I might also want to drop "logical". I accept that most people here
are developing logical theories, but if I understand it correctly, there
is at least one enterprise to develop an ontology based on Category
Theory rather than logic. (04)
MW: If I wanted to put that one level less formally, I would say
"An ontology is a theory of something." (05)
> There are still a variety of informal notions of
> "ontology" where "logical theory" has no purchase. Furthermore,
> formal ontologies themselves tend to evolve out of these
> contexts, so
> it is useful to maintain continuity of usage. Finally,
> "ontology" is
> a nice evocative term whose connotations do usefully reflect
> the fact
> that ontologies are typically designed to play some useful
> conceptual
> or computational role in representing, structuring, and/or managing
> information. Those are good connotations. I simply don't think it
> is possible to capture those important but imprecise connotations in
> a *definition*, and that attempting to do so leads only to useless,
> time-consuming haggling. (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|