ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Definitions from the Merriam-Webster 3rd

To: "Ontology Summit 2007 Forum" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:22:36 +0200
Message-id: <c09b00eb0704210322m5336df3buc6ea82cdf0e5486e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear John    (01)

I do not disagree with Webster, yet I think it's time to update/expand
those entries
(lexicographers on this list?)    (02)

My mother today asked me what am I working on and I explained that I
need to pout together these slides for an ontology summit and she
asked me 'what is ontology' and i answered 'look in the dictionary'
(garzanti),  She did some look up then said that she does not
understand why all of sudden I concern myself with 'the study of
being' although that would explain my propensity for contemplative
idleness    (03)

So I had to explain about the relevance of defining what exists for
the purpose of designing an information system and she said 'ah'.    (04)

I mean: the current entry in a generic dictionary may not capture
(yet) exhaustively all the aspects of our reality as we are defining
on this forum, I also think we are creating new knowledge here, and
the process is painful, hopefully constructive one    (05)

A question  springs to mind : is ontology for our purpose here, only a
'science' and a 'theory'? Anything else we should consider there?    (06)

( Leo seems to insist that our mission today is not necessarily to
produce a definitive definition, so if we decide to suspend this  for
now and focus on other aspects of this discussion is okay for me now,
I am sure this will crop up
later)    (07)

Paola Di Maio    (08)

On 4/21/07, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (09)

>
> My recommendation is to take definition 1a and definition 2
> from the Third Unabridged:
>
>  1. a science or study of being; specifically, a branch of
>     metaphysics relating to the nature and relations of being.
>
>  2. a theory concerning the kinds of entities and specifically
>     the kinds of abstract entities to be admitted to a language
>     system.
>
> Definition 2 covers exactly what we are doing with computer
> ontologies.
>
> ISO normally uses the OED, but I don't have a copy of the OED
> handy. If the group prefers the OED, I would accept that as well.
>
> Let's just take the two definitions above (or the corresponding
> definitions from the OED) and stop all this wrangling.  If we try
> to change a single word, we will go on forever.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>    (010)


-- 
--------------------------------------------
Paola Di Maio
School of IT, MFU.ac.th
--------------------------------------------    (011)

"For as long as space and time endures
may I too abide to dispel misery and ignorance"    (012)

_________________________________________________________________
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/    (013)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>