From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Uschold, Michael F
Sent: 20 April 2007 00:16
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Cc: Wilmering, Timothy J;
david.h.jones@xxxxxxxxxx; Jun.Yuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; William.R.Murray@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit]
Ontology Framework Draft Statement fortheOntology Summit
Overall I like the draft statement. Two minor things
and a more important one.
- I think tha the 'level of structure' dimension
should be called 'degree of structure'. What does level mean?
- Also, would you include Topic Maps in the ontologies,
or is it a near miss?
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.
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
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