On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:06:19AM -0000, matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear Chris,
> > > 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".
>
> 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". (01)
Well, my whole point is that this adds nothing in the way of formal
definition. It's an informal gloss that helps to clarify what
ontologies are for and how they should be understood, but it is useless
when it comes to things like sharing and reasoning upon information in
any formal sense. I can only share and reason upon axioms and other
formal specifications. Hence (or so sez I) notions like "intended
interpretation" shouldn't be part of any formal definition. (02)
> 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. (03)
Category theory can most definitely be formalized as a logical theory. (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (05)
|