ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ontology Summit 2007 Forum" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
From: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:44:10 -0800
Message-id: <4301AFA5A72736428DA388B73676A381056A57A1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
EXCELLENT POINT!    (01)

Before we come up with a definition, lets identify who it is for, and
what purpose the definition is intended to serve.    (02)

Mike    (03)



==========================
Michael Uschold
M&CT, Phantom Works 
425 373-2845
michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx  
==========================    (04)

----------------------------------------------------
COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go
to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html     (05)



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:25 AM
To: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] ontology as logical theory?    (06)

Matthew,    (07)

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx wrote:    (08)

>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".
>
>MW: I might also want to drop "logical". I accept that most people here    (09)

>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.
>
>MW: If I wanted to put that one level less formally, I would say "An 
>ontology is a theory of something."
>
>  
>
+1    (010)

I am curious who is the target of any eventual definition of ontology?    (011)

Is this a definition that we want others (read outside the ontolog
community) to use? And if so, for what purpose?    (012)

I think the same questions could be asked about whatever is going to be
arranged along dimensions. After all, dimensions are chosen for a
reason, that is with some outcome in mind that will result from ordering
along a particular dimension.    (013)

Hope you are at the start of a great week!    (014)

Patrick    (015)

--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model Member, Text
Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005    (016)

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!     (017)



_________________________________________________________________
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/    (018)

_________________________________________________________________
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/    (019)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>