ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:57:41 -0500
Message-id: <45DDF5B5.1030201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
John,    (01)

John F. Sowa wrote:    (02)

> Mike, Patrick, Matthew, et al.,
>
> I agree that different people will have different perspectives that
> may require different views, terminology, and notations.
>
> MFU> Before we come up with a definition, lets identify who it is for,
> > and what purpose the definition is intended to serve.
>
> 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.
>
Hmmm, yes but your proposal illustrates the problem in question.    (03)

Your proposal presumes that logic is an integral part of defining an 
ontology, which as you say "can support *identical* semantics, although 
some versions may be subsets or supersets of other versions."    (04)

Which works out quite well if you are already interested in using logic 
to develop ontologies.    (05)

I have no doubt that logic can be imposed on an ontology that was 
developed without the use of logic. But, then the ontology imposed upon 
is no long the ontology as it existed prior to the imposition of the 
logical framework is it? It is now (post-imposition) an ontology that is 
interpreted through the lens of logic. (As Pat Hayes and others have 
argued in aside comments, that can prove to be very useful in terms of 
exposing hidden assumptions, etc. But the utility of the use of logic is 
not the question I mean to address.)    (06)

The imposition of logic may make the ontology more useful to those who 
wish to use logic or tools based on logic, but there has been no showing 
that logic is a prerequisite for the development of an ontology. Or that 
ontologies developed in the absence of the use of logic are in some way 
less useful to those who use them.
Actually I have been lead to understand that the goal of the forum is 
not *a* definition of ontology but rather a discussion of the many 
meanings that may be given to the term "ontology" so that we can better 
communicate with each other.    (07)

A secondary goal is the construction of a continuum of those 
definitions, but I would note that any such continuum presumes some 
dimension upon which to base that continuum.    (08)

For example, assuming we gather up dozens of definitions of ontologies, 
one dimension for a continuum could be the use of formal logic. Some 
definitions are going to be closer to the formal logic end of the 
continuum than others. But, that is of interest only if a user is 
interested in using the dimension of logic as a rule for choosing an 
ontology.    (09)

Or if we organized ontologies along a continuum of generality, so that 
upper ontologies are at one end and that local ontologies are nearer the 
other, that is of interest if you are concerned with the generality of 
an ontology as a basis for choosing an ontology.    (010)

Or any other dimension that you would like to choose for establishing a 
continuum of the various definitions of ontologies that are likely to 
result from this forum.    (011)

My point being that no definition of an ontology or a continuum for 
organizing such definitions is free from some interest that will be 
promoted by a particular definition or continuum. Drawing on my 
background in biblical studies, the ability to exclude is one 
significant purpose of a definition, cf. the first Council of Nicea. 
That was followed by a burning of all the books that did not qualify for 
inclusion in the Bible. (Only partially successful but did result in the 
loss of a large number of items which leaves us with a distorted view of 
religious texts of that period.)    (012)

> 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.
>
All of which you could add are machine processable, if that is part of 
your definition of "ontology."    (013)

Hope you are having a great day!    (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>