Dear Leo, (01)
My point is very simple. We should not confuse or conflate terminology
and ontology. A terminology determines the terms that shall be used in
some context to convey particular meanings. An ontology identifies
things that exist (I too have no problems with unicorn in an ontology).
This includes terms, and how they are used to denote objects, but does
not necessarily specify a single term to be used for a thing. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (04)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Obrst, Leo J.
> Sent: 22 February 2006 18:28
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention; Chris Menzel
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] RE: Upper Ontology Summit
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> I think your issue is that you are afraid of a smushing together of
> term and ontology. However, I think we can keep these quite distinct,
> if we consider that meaning has at least two components, sense and
> denotation/reference. Then a term (as word or phrase, as opposed to
> "term" in logic, i.e., more formally) has two components of meaning:
> the internal notion (sense) and the external notion (reference).
> Ontology is "about" denotation/reference but the terms (or
> combinations
> of them) index ideas (or concepts; and combinations of ideas/concepts)
> that refer to or are "about" those real world
> references/denotations. I
> take a pragmatic, though principled view, and have no problem putting
> unicorns in an ontology (little o), though I doubt they exist in the
> actual world. So I have no problem with representing those
> intermediate
> idea/concept notions that stand in for real or possible world objects
> and calling them ontology notions. A unicorn is in fact well-defined,
> has mostly all the characteristics of a horse, and as long as we
> identify it as a fictional or imagined entity, what is the problem?
>
> Leo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West,
> Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:44 PM
> To: Chris Menzel; Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] RE: Upper Ontology Summit
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> I'm not arguing that language is not important, just that it is not
> ontology. Mostly I hope we are talking about exchange between
> computers,
> so e.g. English language terms are not a critical element - not many
> databases read English, and it is between databases that most
> computers
> exchange information.
>
> So in ISO 15926 we distinguish between the thing of interest, and the
> term(s) that might be used to designate that thing. Now
> whilst I accept
> that this amounts to giving a meaning to a term, this is a by-blow of
> ontologically identifying that there are terms and objects that they
> refer to as part of the ontology.
>
> So it worries me if what we think we are really doing is defining
> terms.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Chris
> Menzel
> > Sent: 22 February 2006 15:10
> > To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> > Cc: Upper Ontology Summit Organizing Committee
> > Subject: Re: [uos-convene] RE: Upper Ontology Summit
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:09:36AM -0000, West, Matthew R
> SIPC-DFD/321
> > wrote:
> > > > Conclusion of the Upper Ontology Summit
> > > >
> > > > The theory and technology of knowledge representation
> > have advanced
> > > > to a stage where the concepts that are the meanings of
> > terms can be
> > > > formally
> > >
> > > MW: Ontology is supposed to be about what exists, not the meaning
> of
> > > terms.
> >
> > I think you're equivocating on both "ontology" and "about" here,
> > Matthew. True enough, a *given* ontology purports to be about some
> > chunk of the world. But we talk about the world by using
> > language, and
> > surely it is a primary function of an ontology to fix the
> meanings of
> > its component terms with sufficient rigor to faciliate the accurate
> > exchange of information. In that sense big-O Ontology --
> the nascent
> > science of constructing and using little-O ontologies -- is
> very much
> > about meaning. In fact, I would argue that Ontology is much
> > more about
> > meaning than "what exists". There are perhaps good philosophical
> > reasons to think that an ontology is effective in virtue of
> accurately
> > describing what exists -- I believe this myself -- but that
> is just a
> > philosophical stake in the ground that, ultimately, doesn't
> > much matter;
> > it's more religion than science. Your 4Dism, for example,
> postulates
> > that things that are temporally located in the future relative to us
> > nonetheless exist as robustly as we do. Philosophically, I
> find that
> > position repugnant. But, as I've acknowledged before, it might be a
> > useful assumption to make for certain knowledge engineering purposes
> > like planning, in which case so much the worse for my delicate
> > philosophical senstivities. Ultimately, whether or not we are
> > describing what there is -- REALLY -- is neither here nor
> there. The
> > question is whether our ontologies *work*, whether the axioms and
> > definitions we provide for the terms they contain provide effective,
> > well-defined, systematic characterizations of the phenomena we have
> > found it important for our purposes to represent.
> >
> > Chris Menzel
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> > To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> > Shared Files:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
> > Community Wiki:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> Shared Files:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (07)
|