Hello Patrick,
I'm confidant that John will provide a good answer, but I think I'll
take the opportunity to agree with you, that the point of all of
this - in the ontology-summit forum, at least - is " a discussion of
the many meanings that may be given to the term "ontology" so that we
can better communicate with each other." In that sense, I think John
offers an historical insight into how the term "little o" ontology
came into more general use. In my experience, at least, it is a term
that was "borrowed" from meta-physics to help people talk about
knowledge bases as a distinct aspect of a knowledge-based system.
From that perspective, there is a long and rich experience that
relates the term "ontology" to computer implementations of formal
logic. If there were prior - or contemporary - appropriations of the
"little o" term, I, for one, would be interested to know about them.
On the other hand, the notions of a "knowledge base" and "ontology"
seem to be attractive and useful to a larger audience. I remember -
over ten years ago - looking at a pretty extensive "knowledge base"
that had no connection with computer systems, other than the word
processing system in which it was recorded. It is also not unusual
to see similar collections of information that are described as
"ontologies." There seem to be lots of these and they are useful to
the folks that maintain them. More recently, we see a number of web-
based systems, mostly lumped together under the "Web 2.0" rubric,
that depend on some organization of operational information that can
be - and sometimes is - called an "ontology". At least some of those
are prospering greatly [as are their owners].
So, it seems that if we are able to describe some relationship(s)
between all the things to which the term ontology is applied, we
might be able to help out with the issues that Steve Ray mentions
[locating various technologies on a scale or graph], and, as you
mention, to improve communications among the different communities
that use these terms [always a good thing]. But, from my, more
limited view, the potential to improve the process of "technology
transfer" is most interesting. That can happen, I think, if there
are improved communications about (1) authentic functional
requirements [explored and discovered on a daily basis by the Web 2.0
community] and (2) experience and knowledge of how these things work
[known by computer scientists and formal ontologists] and (3) the
potential to address and solve more significant problems [ explored
and worked on by a wider range of academic and other researchers].
That's my two bits. And, at any rate, the discussion, in this group
is almost always entertaining.
I hope you too are having a great day.
Doug (01)
On Feb 22, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: (02)
> John,
>
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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."
>
> Which works out quite well if you are already interested in using
> logic
> to develop ontologies.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
>> 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."
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> 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
>
> Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (04)
|