Mike,
In your slide show you say these are similarities:
“Similarities:
·
Both use natural language as a
source of knowledge to reveal the objects and relationships of interest.
·
Both use formal logic as a key
analytical tool.”
As far as I am aware
1.
While philosophical ontologists tend
to recognise natural language as a useful resource, they spend quite a lot of
time showing how unreliable a guide it is. Some going as far as to say natural
language has been a source of serious error.
2.
Philosophical ontologists now regard
logic and ontology as different disciplines – where ontology deals with
being and logic with inference. I have asked quite a few philosophers for some
explanation of the link between the two – but it does not seem to be
something they investigate. As an historical aside, at the beginning of the 20th
century, there was a much closer connection. BTW I accept that some philosophical
ontologists see logic as a useful analytic tool
So it seems to me these are not as clear cut or strong similarities as
you suggest.
I also note that the original framework document seems to be relatively
neutral about the role of natural language and logic (rightly in my view).
Regards,
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Uschold, Michael F
> Sent: 20 April 2007 18:28
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
Ontology Framework Draft Statement
> fortheOntology Summit
>
> 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.
>
> There are a number of similarities and differences, and it is not
just
> the intended purpose, though that is a very important difference.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ==========================
> Michael Uschold
> M&CT, Phantom Works
> 425 373-2845
> michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==========================
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the
phone, go
> to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html
>
>
>
> -----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
>
> Leo,
>
> I agree with Chris W:
>
> > Surely after 15 years we can do better than
"specification of > a
> conceptualization"? Isn't it time we put that one to
rest?
>
> A lot of hard work has gone into that draft, but I have some
concerns
> about the definitions at the beginning:
>
> 1. I don't believe that the definitions in philosophy
and
> computer science differ in any
significant way.
>
> 2. Where there are differences, they are differences
in
> emphasis or goals.
>
> 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.
>
> I'll start with the first point:
>
> > 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)".
>
> Suggestion: I would delete the two qualifiers
"(philosophy)"
> and "(computer science)". Then replace that
statement with
> the following:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I agree with Chris that the following definition has some serious
> problems:
>
> > An ontology, for computer and information sciences,
is > a
> specification of a conceptualization...
>
> 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'.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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/
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date:
19/04/2007
> 17:56
>
>