|To:||"Ontology Summit 2007 Forum" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Cc:||"Wilmering, Timothy J" <timothy.j.wilmering@xxxxxxxxxx>, david.h.jones@xxxxxxxxxx, Jun.Yuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, William.R.Murray@xxxxxxxxxx|
|From:||"Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:16:04 -0700|
Overall I like the draft statement. Two minor things and a more important one.
Here is a more fundamental question regarding the following sentence in the context of defining an ontology as a specification of a conceptualization.
This is the conventional sense of specification in computer science, analogous to the terms requirements specification, database specification, and program specification. In the context of knowledge representation in particular, an ontology specifies the conceptual primitives for representing a domain, in the same way that a database schema specifies the relations used in a database, and a programming language provides the primitives used in an implemented algorithm.
There is a problem with this analogy.
In CS, a requirements specification is a specification for a software application that you want to build. Before you build it, you want specify what the requirements are so you build the right application. One does the following:
1. think hard about what you need, say for a software application that you wish to build.
2. you write down your thoughts, typicaly using a variety of informal notations, sometimes the notations are formal. This results in a specification for the software application.
3. you take the specification as a starting point for encoding an implementation of the software application that meets the specification.
If this analogy worked, we would have the following:
An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization that you want to build. Before you build it, you want to specify what the requirements are so that you build the right conceptualization. One does the following:
1. think hard about what you need for your conceptualization
2. write down your thoughts, using a variety of informal or formal notations This results in a specification of the conceptualization.
3. you take the specification as a starting point for encoding an implementation of the conceptualization that meets the specification.
This just makes no sense. It is using the word specification in a VERY DIFFERENT, and possibly incorrect way.
I just realized right now why I always had an uneasy feeling about the classic definition of an ontology as a "specification of a conceptualization". Usually you specify what your want to build, but we are not building a conceptualization.
It is the other way around. You have the conceptualization first, and then you carefully and clearly document what that conceptualization is, and THAT is the formal ontology.
So an ontology is not a "specification of an conceptualization" at all, rather, it is a formal way of expressing a conceptualization.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see how the analogies work for: database specification and program specification. Come to think of it, maybe the example I use was mixed up, I might have been talking about program specification.
From: Obrst, Leo J. [mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:18 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement for theOntology Summit
Here is our draft statement about the Ontology Framework. We invite you to consider and discuss this -- now and in next week's sessions. We intend this to be an inclusive characterization of what an ontology is. Inclusive: meaning that we invite you to consider where you and your community is with respect to these dimensions. If you have concerns or issues, restatements or elaborations, please let us know now and next week. This will shortly be posted on the Framework Wiki page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_FrameworksForConsideration.
Tom Gruber, Michael Gruninger, Pat Hayes, Deborah McGuinness, Leo Obrst
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
_________________________________________________________________ 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/ (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement for the Ontology Summit, Obrst, Leo J.|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement for the Ontology Summit, Peter Yim|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement for the Ontology Summit, Obrst, Leo J.|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement for the Ontology Summit, Chris Partridge|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|