[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Criteria for evaluating ontologies at different le

To: "'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:46:58 -0000
Message-id: <50e00d8f.c507b40a.77bd.6461@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear John,    (01)

> In an earlier note, I said that our disagreements seemed to be about a
> choice of words.  And indeed, after examining your ontology, my
> complaints vanished.  I might quibble about some of the details, but
> the general organization of your ontology looks OK.
> >> Can you post that ontology on the wiki or other web site?
> MW
> > The data model (but not the explanation) is available on the web at:
> > http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west/hqdm_framework/
> In my complaints about the word 'individual', I thought you were using
> it as a metalevel term for talking about the ontology.
> But I see that you use the word 'individual' as a name for a category
> in your ontology with the following informal definition:
> Definition of 'individual' in the HQDM Framework:
> > A spatio_temporal_extent that is not a proper temporal_part_of any
> > other individual of the same kind.  Note: In standard mereology a
> > spatio_temporal_extent is a part of itself. Parts of an individual
> > excluding itself are called proper parts.    (02)

MW: Quite.
> The point I was trying to make is that the *metalevel* terms should be
> limited to the words used to describe the syntactic units of the logic
> -- eg, 'relation', 'quantifier', 'variable', 'Boolean operator'.    (03)

MW: As I said repeatedly, a logic, or other formalism for representing an
ontology should not make any ontological commitments.
> I would not recommend the word 'individual' as a metalevel term.
> But if you want to make it the name of a category in the ontology,
> that's your prerogative.    (04)

MW: Well the average user will be entirely unaware of its use by logicians,
so I would not expect to have the misunderstanding we have had here.
> But you still have to relate those terms in the upper level ontology to
> the words that the domain experts or SMEs use to talk about their
> subject.  I agree with Doug Lenat that the mid level and lower level
> ontology is the most important for applications.    (05)

MW: Actually it is the other way round. The principle purpose of an upper
ontology is that you relate the terms of domain experts and SMEs to that
upper ontology together, thereby bringing together similar concepts, and
distinguishing different uses of the same terms. You can then also apply
templates from the upper ontology to the domain terms and improve the
consistency of the ontology at the domain level.    (06)

Regards    (07)

Matthew West                            
Information  Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (08)

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.    (09)

> 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/OntologySummit2013/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/    (010)

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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (011)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>