W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Ontology of Rough Sets

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:53:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4D2F4A1F.60400@openlinksw.com>
To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, John Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>
On 1/13/11 8:36 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Folks,

John,

Great comments. I've cc'd in the LOD community mailing list as these 
sentiments have some bearing on an ongoing conversation thread [1].

Links:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011Jan/


Others: please read on....
> We have to make a clear distinction between ontology and the tools,
> languages, logics, and reasoning methods used with any ontology.
> The subject line of this thread could be very misleading.
>
> Ever since Aristotle, categories and hierarchies of categories
> have been useful for ontology -- primarily because the study
> of existence leads to a study of what kinds of things exist.
>
> A's syllogisms and his method of definition by genus and
> differentiae have also been useful.  But many people (starting
> with Aristotle himself) have noted that prototypes rather
> than strict definitions are better for some applications.
>
> In general, there is *no* specific logic or reasoning method
> that is either essential or irrelevant to ontology.  The
> choice depends entirely on specific applications -- or even
> on very narrow questions or problems about an application.
>
> Re rough sets:  This is an important topic, but I would be
> very cautious about any way of thinking that combines the
> word 'ontology' with any particular reasoning method.
>
> That is in fact why I have been unhappy with the phrase
> "Web Ontology Language" used as a scrambled acronym for OWL.
> It suggests to many novices, that the word 'the' belongs in
> front of that phrase -- but that idea is hopelessly misguided.
>
> Ontology is *orthogonal* to any and all versions of logic,
> reasoning methods, and implementation tools.  Any specific
> language or tool tends to channel thinking into certain paths
> that may be useful for some applications.  But ways of thinking
> that are specialized for one kind of application can often be
> inappropriate or even misguided for other applications.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 18:53:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:31 UTC