IAOA Ontology Terminology Sub-committee wiki home-page (3F4Z)
Sub-committee for Ontology Terminology - a part of the IAOA Education Committee (3F50)
- Co-chairs: ToddSchneider & AdamGoldstein (3F51)
- EC liaisons: FabianNeuhaus & LeoObrst (3F52)
- Mailing List Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-education (3F53)
- please use the [terminology], [lexicon?] or [-???-] prefix in the subject line when starting a new thread (3F54)
... ( co-chairs, please check Purple Numbers (Peter's Email, Sept11,2012) you would need to get rid of the PurpleNumbers[1] (from the old page [Lexicon] - content migrated on Sept 11, 2012) so that the system can generate new ones for the migrated content. ... but, for those who are unfamiliar, we have a tool[2] which will allow one to remove all PurpleNumbers from the wiki-text of a page (before pasting that to a new page). [1] PurpleNumbers - see: http://community.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?PurpleNumbers [2] "no-purple" - see: http://community.cim3.net/file/resource/tool_windows/no-purple/ (3F55)
This page is used to organize the IAOA effort to create a lexicon of terms most relevant to applied ontology. (3F5B)
Participants (3F5C)
- ToddSchneider - co-chair (3F59)
- FrancescaQuattri (3F5D)
- AdamGoldstein - co-chair (3F5A)
- FranciscoEdgarCastilloBarrera (3F5E)
- LucSchneider (3F5F)
- RichardDapoigny (3F5G)
- AliHashemi (3F5H)
Todd Schneider suggested this project and provided a initial list of terms. This page is intended to collect a list of terms. (3F5I)
Background (3F5J)
During this year's IAOA Summer School (2012) the lectures provided a wealth of information about different aspects of ontology. It was clear that each area had an impact or was used by other areas in this interdisciplinary field. Two issues were not completely addressed during these lectures. The first was how the particular area being lectured about impacted or was used by the other areas addressed during the lectures. The second was a clear identification of how various terms were being used and how those uses differed (or not) in the other areas. (3F5K)
Another aspect of this ambiguity is the need to ease the understanding and acceptance of ontology its paradigms and uses. In trying to explain this interdisciplinary field, or for newcomers, the lack of clear (or at least less ambiguous) 'meanings' of core terms in a discipline that claims to be able to overcome such short comings in other fields is problematic (if not embarrassing). I understand that there exist differences of opinion surrounding some terms or their uses. But ontology is supposed [help] make such things explicit. (3F5L)
The following diagram was created to provide a simple view of the areas addressed (during the lectures) and their (perceived) relations and also to provide a focus on those areas whose terms need clarification. This was a joint undertaking (prior to dinner on Thursday evening of the summer school). (3F5M)
Background Addendum (3K71)
Given the interdisciplinary nature of applied ontology and how it has developed over the last few decades there are many terms used in ambiguous or even inconsistent ways across relevant communities. In order to facilitate and promote the use of applied ontology a consistent set of terms and their interpretations in important. (3K73)
Plan (3K74)
Given the limited resources available to develop this list of terminology we will not follow John Sowa's commendable suggestion (below), but proceed from the 'core' terms identified during the 2012 IAOA Summer School. (3K77)
These 'core' terms constitute part of the metalanguage for applied ontology. Terms having fairly well defined definitions (e.g., provided in standards) need not be considered at this stage of development. (3K78)
Once these 'core' terms, their definitions, interpretations, and commentary are agreed upon, additional terms can be nominated by IAOA members. (3K75)
Core Terms (3F5O)
Please feel free to add to this list (of core terms) and to provide definitions and explanations of these terms. If a term is used in more than one sense or in one or more of the areas listed in the above diagram, please clearly label the sense or area of use and use different bullets to distinguish the different meanings and context of use. E.g., (3F5P)
(Depending on the size of the entry it might be best to create a new wiki page for the term.) (3F5T)
* Category (3F5U)
- Common Logic. {nid 3DWS} - Note: This is not a core term and has a clear interpretation. Hence need not be in the this lexicon. (3F5V)
- A framework for logics[1] standardized in ISO/IEC 24707. (3F5W)
* Class (3F5X)
* Concept (3F60)
* Continuant (3F61)
* Disposition (3F62)
* Endurant (3GCR)
* Essence (3F66)
* Exemplification (3F67)
* Instantiation (3F68)
* Kind (3F69)
* Logic (3F6A)
- The combination of a formal language with a formal theory of truth or a proof theory (or both). (3F6B)
- The study of arguments, with the intention of describing how to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments. According to the generally accepted usage among philosophers, an argument is valid if (and only if) There are no cases in which the premises of the argument are true, but the conclusion of the argument false. A distinction is often made between valid arguments and cogent arguments. A cogent argument is a valid argument the premises of which are true. These terms only apply to what is called deductive logic, as opposed to inductive forms of reasoning. {nid 3F6C} (3WIP)
- Some logics are classified as monotonic. Monotonic logics fit most closely what most people understand deductive logic to be. Roughly speaking, a logic is monotonic if (and only if) all deductively valid arguments formulated in that logic remain deductively valid, even if new premises are added to such arguments. Non-monotonic logics reflect what most people think of as inductive logic. (3WIQ)
- Deductive reasoning is sometimes described as being most essentially inference from the general to the particular; inductive reasoning is sometimes described as being most essentially inference from the particular to the general. These descriptions are useful, but the two kinds of logic are best understood in terms of the degree of certainty conferred on the conclusion by the premises. Deductive arguments are those in which, in good arguments, the premises confer certainty on their conclusions. Deductive validity as described above embodies this requirement. Inductive arguments are those in which, in good arguments, the premises confer a degree of certainty less than total on their conclusions. In such arguments, the probability of the conclusion follows from the premises. (3WIR)
- Other concepts and terms concerning logic, someone please add to this: propositional calculus (sentential logic), first-order logic, predicate logic, predicate calculus, (3WIS)
* Mass (3F6D)
* Member (suggested by Johanna) (3F6E)
* Metaphysics (3F6F)
- In an Aristotelian tradition, metaphysics comprises two topics: the nature of God, understood as a first cause or "unmoved mover;" and the description of all that is, i.e., ontology. (3WIT)
- Study of things not accessible by the senses. Plato's theory of forms is a paradigm case of a metaphysical theory, because the forms, which are something like universals, cannot be detected by use of any of the 5 senses, and do not exist in space or time. In the first half of the 20th century, "metaphysics" was often used in a derogative sense by philosophers who strongly promoted empiricism. This derogatory sense of the term is becoming weaker as more philosophers take up issues concerning entities that cannot be detected with the sense. For instance, Barry Smith explicitly rejects anti-metaphyical points of view about ontology. (3WIU)
* Necessity (3F6G)
- Negation as failure {nid 3DXI} - Note: This is not a core term and has a fairly clear interpretation. Hence need not be in the this lexicon. (3F6H)
* Occurrent (3F6I)
- Synonomous with Perdurant (3GCU)
* Ontology (3F6J)
- An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them (Barry Smith, WaclawKusnierczyk, DanielSchober, WernerCeusters). (3F6K)
- OWL (Web Ontology Language) {nid 3DWV} - Note: This is not a core term and has a fairly clear interpretation. Hence need not be in the this lexicon. (3F6L)
- A framework for logics[1] standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium. (3F6M)
* Particular (3F6N)
- entities which have no instances, WonderWeb Deliverable D18. (3GCY)
* Perdurant (3F6O)
- entities that happen in time, they extend in time by accumulating different temporal parts, so that, at any time t at which they exist, only their temporal parts at t are present, WonderWeb Deliverable D18. (3GCV)
- Synonomous with Occurrent. (3GCW)
* Predicate (3F6P)
* Property (3F6Q)
* Quality (3F6R)
- An entity we can perceive or measure; qualities are particulars. Qualities inhere to entities: every entity (including qualities themselves) comes with certain qualities, which exist as long as the entity exists, WonderWeb Deliverable D18. (3GD0)
* Role (3F6U)
* Semantics (3F6V)
- Meaningless buzz word that can be safely ignored. (3F6W)
- (logic) The semantics of a logic[1] is its formal theory of truth. (3F6X)
- (semiotics) The relationship between a sign of a language to reality; in contrast to its relationship to other signs (syntax) and to the use of the sign (pragmatics). (3F6Y)
* Sortal (3F6Z)
* Trope (3F70)
* Type (3F71)
- "type" for the same reason that the term "set".
A type in ontology modeling is a mathematical notion typically expressed at the meta-level (language). With this meaning, it should not be a term for ontological modeling. (3F72)
- (different definition of "type" at the concept level. (entry specification suggested from Richard D.) (3F73)
- Unique name assumption {nid 3DXJ} - Note: This is not a 'term' and has a fairly clear interpretation. Hence need not be in the this lexicon. (3F74)
* Universal (3F75)
- entities that can have instances, WonderWeb Deliverable D18. (3GCZ)
- UpperOntology {nid 3DX5} (3F76)
- Web Ontology Language {nid 3DWX} - Note: This is not a core term and has a fairly clear interpretation. Hence need not be in the this lexicon. (3F77)
- see OWL (3F78)
Member Comments (3F79)
Brief summary of the IAOA members' comments posted between Monday 13 and August 15 August, 2012 (members' names mentioned with no reference to titles, surnames introduced only to disambiguate - happy to make revisions in case of compliances) (3F7A)
MIND / Concept MAP (3F7B)
- "Development of a lexicon of applied ontology for the area of applied ontology [...] (3F7C)
- "allowing the various aspects of the subdomains to be properly represented" (3F7D)
- "make explicit the relations among these domains" (better specify the term 'use')" (Todd, Amanda Hicks, Johanna, AmandaVizedom) (3F7E)
- "it would be good to see an organized effort within IAOA to create a lexicon, guide, or formal entity about formal ontology. First, what is the aim; and second, what content and method is best for attaining that aim? " (Adam) (3F7F)
- Focus on areas that might need additional research (Todd). (3F7G)
- Do try the "attempt to clarify the most relevant terms from philosophy would help. Both historically and in current research, philosophy has had an impact on what is now called applied ontology." (Todd) (3F7H)
- "Upper-lever ontologies such as the BFO are formulated in terms of theories of fundamental realities, so it's important when talking about those topics that connections be made to their roots in philosophical ontology." (Luc) (3F7I)
- "The history does not seem to me to be as useful for the current practitioner. [...] the important thing for the current practitioner is just to explain how the term is being used now.
I don't want to under-emphasize how important and useful the study of basic metaphysics is for formal ontology." (3F7J)
- "What might be helpful would be a syllabus or curriculum that could specify pretty clearly some of the chapters or passages from Plato, Aristotle, and other texts from philosophy [...]" (3F7K)
- "It would be nice to have a handbook of some kind, in which it's said, the IAOA has determined that the best way to understand X is Y, and then it is encouraged that people use X to mean Y, and not re-use those terms for other purposes." (3F7L)
- "Prescriptive and descriptive efforts need not exclude one another." (Adam) (3F7M)
- "it's premature to attempt a formal ontology [...] Any term in any widely used methodology should be included in the glossary, but it's more important to be descriptive than prescriptive." (John Sowa) (3F7N)
- Creation of a good philosophical lexicon (Johanna). (3F7O)
- Ask the membership "to map these concepts to the words and expressions used for them within different subcommunities. A search on these expressions would then provide a variety of meanings and communities or activities within which they are used." (Amanda Hicks) (3F7P)
- Provide a guide to usage in practice, rather than attempt to stipulate usage or establish conventions [...] (3F7Q)
- work with the range of uses and the annotations in the records for each ontology term, or class, or whatever we are going to call it. (3F7R)
- [... ]I think a dictionary-like listing with judiciously placed "see as", "broader than", and "narrower than" would be useful (3F7S)
- Introduce keywords to index each term's record. (AmandaVizedom) (3F7T)
- "a lexicon of ontological terms should trace their meaning back to the original philosophical usage, while mentioning shifts of meaning wherever they occurred in applied ontology." (Luc) (3F7U)
SUGGESTED REFERENCE WORKS : (3F7V)
- BarrySmith's works (Kevin Mulligan) (3F7W)
- JohnSowa's Appendix (in "Knowledge representation : logical, philosophical, and computational foundations", 2000) (Luc) (3F98)
- NicolaGuarino's Report on DOLCE and the Foundational Ontologies (http://Wonderweb.semanticweb.org) (Luc) (3F99)
- Handbook for Metaphysics and Ontology (Burkhardt/Smith, Munich 1990) (suggested by Johanna and Luc) (3F7X)
- the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Johanna, Nicola) (3F7Y)
- some of these concepts are also part of the Gellish 'Formal English' language definition (http://www.gellish.net/downloads, in TOPini Section, Gellish Formal English Dictionary-Taxonomy) (Andries) (3F7Z)
- Description an ontology working group associated with an ANSI standards project, founded some 15 years ago: http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/; glossary (22,817 Google hits): http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm (John Sowa) (3F80)
- http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/glossary.htm (glossary of logic; take it as example of the size and scope of a glossary of ontology) (John) (3F81)
- also look at: Rosch, E.H.; Mervis, C.B. (1981). "Categorization of Natural Objects". Annual Review of Psychology volume = 32: 89-113; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Rosch (3F82)
- (added on Aug. 25, 2012) and at: Huang et al. "Ontology and the Lexicon". 2010. Cambridge University Press. {nid 3EKX}.. the WonderWeb library of foundational ontologies (39) (3F83)
HOW TO PROCEED (3F84)
Suggestions: (3F85)
1. Begin with a compilation of all freely available glossaries and lexicons of terms used in theoretical and applied ontology. (3F86)
2. The terms should be sorted in alphabetical order. The entry for each term should contain all the definitions from all the sources together with any new definitions that any board members propose. Each definition should be annotated with the initials of the original source or the board member who proposed it. (3F87)
3. Somebody should set up a site (such as a Google docs project) to which all IAOA board members would be entitled to make additions, revisions, and comments. The first stage should emphasize additions before we make extensive revisions. (3F88)
4. When we reach a consensus that the glossary is sufficiently complete, reliable, and presentable, it should be exported to a publicly available site. (3F89)
5. The editing site should be maintained indefinitely for any further additions, corrections, or revisions. Periodically, the latest consensus should be exported to the public site. (3F8A)
"I suppose one needs as many definitions as necessary to accommodate everyone's concept (!) behind the terms. Giving real (not made-up) example sentences is always a good idea. One can sort these contexts into groups where each group of examples uses the word with the same meaning and differently from the usages in other groups." (Christiane Fellbaum) (3F8C)
JOINT WORK (3F8D)
"My main motivation for suggesting a subcommittee of the Education Committee is that is one way to make fit the effort into the IAOA structure and make it an official IAOA effort. The purpose of the subcommittee would be to provide a forum for a group of people who are committed to contribute to the lexicon." (Fabian) (3F8E)
"There needs to be Lead Editor (or similar title) who will focus the efforts of producing a product applicable to the larger community of applied ontology and accounting for the sub-domains which constitute this interdisciplinary field." (Todd) (3F8F)
" Another source input be the ongoing standardisation initiatives, and this should probably be co-ordinated with the standards SIG. (3F9A)
We probably should have representatives being involved from the main communities, i.e. at least OWL (stable terminology), Common Logic (revision coming up), and DOL (OntoIOp.org, currently under development), and maybe others. (3F9B)
[...]This could also be an opportunity for the ontology terminology subcommittee to have real impact on the shape of the standards currently under development, and it could also be a chance to harmonise e.g. the CL and DOL terminology, where possible." (Oliver) (3F9C)
+++ ON 'METAPHYSICS' AND 'ONTOLOGY' IN PHILOSOPHY / a 'side issue' (Luc) +++: (3F8G)
"[...] (3F8H)
I also think it would be helpful if we philosophers were to try and minimize the difficulties for non-philosophers by sticking as much as possible to the term 'ontology' when we speak about ontology. This should ease communication amongst ontologists in IT and ontologists in philosophy, since that communication is, after all, about ontology, not about metaphysics. (We philosophers might then use our training to try to argue for the metaphysical preferability of the ontology we propose, but these efforts belong into philosophy)." (Johanna) (3F8I)
"This in itself is an important bias: that applied (or even "pure") formal ontology is going to be based on, or draw primarily from, a (3F8J)
metaphysical view." (Adam) (3F8K)
"Certainly. However, this will be the case if you use foundational ontologies or the OntoClean methodology in order to build the respective applied ontologies. (3F8L)
Some people try to do without foundational ontologies or ontology-based methodologies such as OntoClean. But in some sense you will always have to use abstract modeling primitives like "object" or "process", whether implicitly or explicitly. If so, you will do formal ontology, knowingly or unknowingly. (3F8M)
So, yes, it's a bias - but one that is difficult to avoid." (Luc) (3F8N)
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS (3F8O)
- recommendation to non-philosophers (by Johanna): (3F8P)
- "stick with the history of analytical ontology, with Carnap, Quine, and Goodman, and [...] call category theory (= (1) = a theory that postulates types of basic entities and relationships) (1) 'ontology' and not 'metaphysics'. [...] If you find that a philosopher does category theory but calls it 'metaphysics', keep in mind that he or she does ontology AND (if the terminology is used with proper reflection) wishes to signal that the classification system that he or she champions 'cuts reality at its joints', i.e., is true of reality." (3F8Q)
- "[...] simply not true in general. There are many academic articles and monographs that purport to be on metaphysics and that do not advocate any particular ontological choices, but evaluate arguments in favor of or against a given position that is neither adopted nor rejected. A good example is "If Tropes" by Anna-Sofie Maurin." (Luc) (3F8R)
CONSTRAINS / SCEPTICISM (3F8S)
Maybe we should face from the beginning on the natural scepticism that could arise from attempt to create a lexicon of applied ontology, very much justified by the objective difficulty to mark clear boundaries in and across the entries' definitions. (3F8T)
In our joint effort, we should keep in mind that: "Lexicon is" (3F8U)
- not systematic (mapping 1:1) (3F8V)
- dynamic, but with a random / uncontrolled development (3F8W)
- organic, neither designed nor artificially constructed (3F8X)
- useful, which means that its final purpose should be to serve people's needs" (from ChristianeFellbaum's "Ontology, Lexicon and Cognitive Science", 2012) (3F8Y)