ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement for theOntology

To: "Ontology Summit 2007 Forum" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:28:10 -0700
Message-id: <4301AFA5A72736428DA388B73676A3810357797A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Here are a few slides summing up the difference between ontology in
philosophy vs.. Computer science. I ran it by a philosopher who should
know: Chris Menzel.    (01)

There are a number of similarities and differences, and it is not just
the intended purpose, though that is a very important difference.    (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: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:35 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Framework Draft Statement for
theOntology Summit    (06)

Leo,    (07)

I agree with Chris W:    (08)

 > Surely after 15 years we can do better than "specification of  > a
conceptualization"?  Isn't it time we put that one to rest?    (09)

A lot of hard work has gone into that draft, but I have some concerns
about the definitions at the beginning:    (010)

  1. I don't believe that the definitions in philosophy and
     computer science differ in any significant way.    (011)

  2. Where there are differences, they are differences in
     emphasis or goals.    (012)

  3. If possible, we should adopt a common definition that
     is acceptable to both fields, and include a few comments
     about the way that differences in goals and emphasis may
     cause differences in usage.    (013)

I'll start with the first point:    (014)

 > There are at least two important word senses for 'ontology':
 > ontology as a field of study "ontology (philosophy)" and  > ontology
as a technology for computer and information  > scientists. We are
talking about the second sense of the  > word, "ontology (computer
science)".    (015)

Suggestion:  I would delete the two qualifiers "(philosophy)"
and "(computer science)".   Then replace that statement with
the following:    (016)

    There are two important senses of the word 'ontology':
    ontology as a general field that studies what exists,
    and a particular ontology that is the result or product
    of such a study.    (017)

Then follow that with examples of such products, such as Aristotle's
ontology of 10 top-level categories, Kant's 12 top-level categories, and
various computer versions, such Cyc, SUMO, etc.    (018)

I agree with Chris that the following definition has some serious
problems:    (019)

 > An ontology, for computer and information sciences, is  > a
specification of a conceptualization...    (020)

A definition is supposed to define a poorly understood word in terms of
other words that are simpler, more common, or easier to understand.  But
the word 'conceptualization' is much harder to define than 'ontology'.
It is also a less common term.  (Google has 14.5 million hits for
'ontology', but only 4.3 million for 'conceptualization' -- or 6 million
if you include the spelling 'conceptualisation'.)    (021)

If we define "ontology" as "study of existence" and define "an ontology"
as the result of that study, those definitions depend only on the three
words "study", "existence", and "result", which have, respectively, 492,
179, and 762 million hits on Google.  That meets one criterion for a
good definition:  define uncommon words in terms of more common ones.    (022)

I have some quibbles about the remainder of the report, but my primary
recommendation is to make a drastic cut in the opening section:  replace
everything up to the heading "kinds of ontologies" with those simple
definitions above.    (023)

John    (024)

_________________________________________________________________
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/    (025)

Attachment: Ontology-CS-vs.-IT.ppt
Description: Ontology-CS-vs.-IT.ppt


_________________________________________________________________
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>