Mike, Patrick, Matthew, et al., (01)
I agree that different people will have different perspectives that
may require different views, terminology, and notations. (02)
MFU> Before we come up with a definition, lets identify who it is for,
> and what purpose the definition is intended to serve. (03)
But I believe that we can have a general definition, based on (1) logic,
(2) theoretical views of ontology, and (3) methodologies for adapting
logic and ontology (in the philosophical sense) to the kn. engineering
problems of developing *an* ontology for some particular domain and
enabling multiple systems and users share it and reuse it. (04)
Different users in different domains may view the same logical
statements in different languages for different purposes. That
is the main reason why we developed Common Logic with an abstract
syntax and no privileged or preferred concrete syntax. That allows
different notations that support different subsets, such as RDF, OWL,
Datalog, SQL, SPARQL, CLIF, CGIF, XCL, and many others, including
dialects of controlled natural languages. But all those notations
can support *identical* semantics, although some versions may be
subsets or supersets of other versions. (05)
John (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)
|