= Ontology Terminology Subcommittee= (as commonly decided on Sept. 11, 2012) (3GYT)
CONTENT MIGRATED!! http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?IaoaOntologyTerminology Please edit the new wiki page. (3F8Z)
Lexicon for Applied Ontology (3DW0)
This page is used to organize the IAOA effort to create a lexicon of terms most relevant to applied ontology. (3E1W)
Participants (3E1X)
- ToddSchneider {nid 3E1Y} - co-chair (3F90)
- Francesca Quattri (3E1Z)
- Adam Goldstein {nid 3E23} - co-chair (3F91)
- Francisco-Edgar Castillo-Barrera (3E24)
- Luc Schneider (3E29)
- Richard Dapoigny (3E2A)
- Ali Hashemi (3E2E)
Todd Schneider suggested this project and provided a initial list of terms. This page is intended to collect a list of terms. (3ELE)
Background (3ELF)
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. (3ELG)
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. (3ELX)
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). (3ELH)
Core Terms (3ELJ)
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., (3DW1)
(Depending on the size of the entry it might be best to create a new wiki page for the term.) (3DW4)
* Category (3ELK)
- Common Logic. {nid 3DWS} - Note: This is not a core term and has a clear interpretation. Hence need not be in the this lexicon. (3ELY)
- A framework for logics[1] standardized in ISO/IEC 24707. (3DWT)
* Class (3DW7)
- ""class" has a clear meaning in the context of XML; but its meaning is clearly defined in the context of the BFO and OBO Foundry. I don't think we'd want to tell people to only use "class" in one of those two ways, but we could explain the difference across contexts." (Adam) (3E6W)
- A CLASS is a collection of all and only the particulars to which a given general term applies. Where the general term in question refers to a universal, then the corresponding class, called the EXTENSION of the universal (at a given time), comprehends all and only those particulars which as a matter of fact instantiate the corresponding universal (at that time). The totality of classes is wider than the totality of extensions of universals since it includes also DEFINED CLASSES, designated by terms like employee of Swedish bank, daughter of Finnish spy (Barry Smith, Waclaw Kusnierczyk, Daniel Schober, Werner Ceusters). (3EM5)
* Concept (3DW6)
* Continuant (3EM8)
* Disposition (3DW8)
- the term is often used more broadly in the philosophical literature, covering
virtually all "realizable entities" (Luc( (3E69)
- see entry in BFO (Luc) (3E6A)
* Continuant (3EM9)
* Essence (3DW9)
* Exemplification (3DWA)
* Instantiation (3DWB)
* Kind (3DWC)
* Logic (3DWD)
- The combination of a formal language with a formal theory of truth or a proof theory (or both). (3DWZ)
- The study of arguments, in particular whether arguments are valid or not. (3DX0)
* Mass (3DWE)
* Member (suggested by Johanna) (3E6X)
* Metaphysics (3DWQ)
* Necessity (3DWF)
- 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. (3ELO)
* Occurrent (3EMA)
* Ontology (3DWR)
- 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, Waclaw Kusnierczyk, Daniel Schober, Werner Ceusters). (3EM1)
- 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. (3ELP)
- A framework for logics[1] standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium. (3DWW)
* Particular (3EM6)
* Perdurant (3EMB)
* Predicate (3DWG)
* Property (3DWH)
* Quality (3DWI)
* Role (3DWK)
* Semantics (3DX1)
- Meaningless buzz word that can be safely ignored. (3DX2)
- (logic) The semantics of a logic[1] is its formal theory of truth. (3DX3)
- (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). (3DX6)
* Sortal (3DWL)
* Trope (3DWM)
* Type (3DWN)
- "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. (3E6C)
- (different definition of "type" at the concept level. (entry specification suggested from Richard D.) (3E6D)
- 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. (3ELU)
* Universal (3EM7)
- Upper Ontology {nid 3DX5} (3ELV)
- 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. (3ELW)
- see OWL (3DWY)
Member Comments (3ELZ)
Brief summary of the IAOA members' comments posted between Monday 13 and August 15 August, 2012 (members's names mentioned with no reference to titles, surnames introduced only to disambiguate - happy to make revisions in case of compliances) (3E6E)
MIND/Concept MAP (3E6Y)
- "Development of a lexicon of applied ontology for the area of applied ontology [...] (3E6F)
- "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) (3E6Z)
- Focus on areas that might need additional research (Todd). (3E6I)
- 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) (3E6J)
- "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) (3E70)
- "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." (3E71)
- "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 [...]" (3E72)
- "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." (3E73)
- "Prescriptive and descriptive efforts need not exclude one another." (Adam) (3E74)
- "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) (3E75)
- Creation of a good philosophical lexicon (Johanna). (3E6K)
- 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) (3E6L)
- Provide a guide to usage in practice, rather than attempt to stipulate usage or establish conventions [...] (3E6M)
- 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. (3E6N)
- [... ]I think a dictionary-like listing with judiciously placed "see as", "broader than", and "narrower than" would be useful (3E6O)
- Introduce keywords to index each term's record. (Amanda Vizedom) (3E6P)
- "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) (3E6Q)
SUGGESTED REFERENCE WORKS : (3E6R)
- Barry Smith's works (Kevin Mulligan) (3E7A)
- Handbook for Metaphysics and Ontology (Burkhard/Smith, Munich 1990) (suggested by Johanna) (3E6T)
- the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Johanna, Nicola) (3E6U)
- 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) (3E6V)
- 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) (3E7B)
- 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) (3E7C)
- 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 (3ECT)
- (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) (3EKZ)
HOW TO PROCEED (3E7D)
Suggestions: (3E7E)
1. Begin with a compilation of all freely available glossaries and lexicons of terms used in theoretical and applied ontology. (3E7F)
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. (3E7G)
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. (3E7H)
4. When we reach a consensus that the glossary is sufficiently complete, reliable, and presentable, it should be exported to a publicly available site. (3E7I)
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. (3E7J)
(John Sowa) (3E7K)
"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) (3E7X)
JOINT WORK (3E7L)
"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) (3E7M)
"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) (3E7N)
+++ ON 'METAPHYSICS' AND 'ONTOLOGY' IN PHILOSOPHY / a 'side issue' (Luc) +++: (3E7O)
"[...] (3E7P)
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) (3E7Q)
"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 (3E7R)
metaphysical view." (Adam) (3E7S)
"Certainly. However, this will be the case if you use foundational ontologies or the OntoClean methodology in order to build the respective applied ontologies. (3E7T)
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 explicity. If so, you will do formal ontology, knowingly or unknowingly. (3E7U)
So, yes, it's a bias - but one that is difficult to avoid." (Luc) (3E7V)
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS (3E76)
- recommendation to non-philosophers (by Johanna): (3E77)
- "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." (3E78)
- "[...] 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) (3E79)
CONSTRAINS / SCEPTICISM (3E8B)
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. (3E85)
In our joint effort, we should keep in mind that: "Lexicon is" (3E86)
- not systematic (mapping 1:1) (3E87)
- dynamic, but with a random / uncontrolled development (3E88)
- organic, neither designed nor artificially constructed (3E89)
- useful, which means that its final purpose should be to serve people's needs" (from Fellbaum's "Ontology, Lexicon and Cognitive Science", 2012) (3E8A)