Hi Barry (01)
Quoting "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>: (02)
>
>
> At 12:07 AM 4/21/2007, you wrote:
> >I agree: we've worked with the definition "a formal descriptions of
> >terms and the relationships between them" [1] as being good enough
> >to know what we talking about when we're talking about what we're
> >talking about...and "good enough" should be good enough.
>
>
> If 'term', here, means 'linguistic expression' (or perhaps more
> narrowly 'noun-phrase'), then this definition would make ontology a
> branch of linguistics. (03)
I don't see the reduction of ontology to linguistics.
If I have a first-order ontology, I have a nonlogical
lexicon of symbols that denote elements or sets of elements in
some domain; this doesn't make first-order logic a branch of
linguistics. (04)
I agree that with informal ontologies the line is blurry --
e.g. is WordNet part of linguistics or is it an informal ontology?
However, what we are trying to do at this Summit is to identify
what is common to all the different approaches to ontology,
and also to identify distinctions among them. (05)
> Most of the ontologies with which I am working
> would not satisfy this definition. (06)
Can you please provide some description of the ontologies
with which you are working? This could provide examples
and counterexamples for comparison with other perspectives. (07)
- michael (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (09)
|