Re: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology

That's much better for Wikipedia than getting too deep into ABox and  
TBox.

Thanks, Kei.

On the other hand, some may not agree with the focus on the lexicon -  
"Ontology is defined as a formal specification of a vocabulary,  
including axioms relating the terms" -  though I do like the  
accessibility of that description.

Of course, you could additionally reference the Wikipedia entries for  
Abox & Tbox:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABox
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBox

Cheers,
Bill


On Jan 24, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Kei Cheung wrote:

> Just to add to Bill's comments. According to the following paper:
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/hnn72w7r18238467/
>
> Ontology is defined as a formal specification of a vocabulary,  
> including axioms relating the terms. A dataset is defined as a set  
> of facts expressed using a particular ontology.
>
> -Kei
>
> William Bug wrote:
>
>> I think you are right, David - axioms would be better, as  
>> algorithms implies - though doesn't proscribe - an implementation  
>> strategy that may not be relevant to all uses of formal  
>> ontologies.  Perhaps the use of algorithms relates to Tom Gruber's  
>> oft quoted description of what an ontology is - a description that  
>> does not fit for everyone using formal ontologies.
>>
>> Maybe some mention of how formal ontologies are used to test  
>> formal assertions and some mention of the difference between the  
>> TBox & the ABox (using more accessible expressions) would be  
>> useful as well.
>>
>> Again - thanks for trying to put this out there.  I do think it  
>> can be a very useful resource.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2007, at 10:03 AM, David Decraene wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to comment on these statements:
>>> Perhaps it can be phrased better, but 'algorhythms' refers to the  
>>> fact that a formal upper level ontology has built-in DISJOINT  
>>> (and other) axioms which reflect back onto their children (ergo  
>>> the consistency check phrase). Axioms is perhaps a better choice.
>>>  Also, the formal in formal ontology has nothing to do with the  
>>> language of representation (perhaps that part can be phrased  
>>> better as well to avoid confusion) but to the formalism  
>>> (formality of the ontology as you refer to it) that is embedded  
>>> in the framework.
>>>  I do not disagree that this page can be improved further (which  
>>> is the purpose and strongpoint of wikipedia), but explaining in  
>>> laymans terms what a formal ontology is about is a challenge.
>>>
>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>     *From:* public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
>>>     [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org]*On Behalf Of
>>>     *Robert Stevens
>>>     *Sent:* woensdag 24 januari 2007 15:45
>>>     *To:* Phillip Lord; Alan Ruttenberg
>>>     *Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci hcls
>>>     *Subject:* Re: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology
>>>
>>>     /'d be inclined to agree with Phil. I don't where the bit about
>>>     "algorithms" has come from. The other mistake, I think, is  
>>> not to
>>>     make the distinction between formality of language for
>>>     representaiton and the formality of the ontology itself. The
>>>     latter is, I think, a matter of the distinctions made. One can
>>>     make an ontology in a formal language like owl, but still be
>>>     informal in the ontological distinctions made.
>>>
>>>     /Formal ontological distinctions can be encapsulated in an upper
>>>     level, but upper level otnoogies are not necessarily  
>>> formal....          the phrase also explicitely refers to upper  
>>> level ontologies that
>>>     are formal in nature...
>>>     Anyway, it is bad at almost any level
>>>
>>>     Robert.
>>>     ,At 13:55 24/01/2007, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>>
>>>>     >>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com
>>>>     <mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>       Alan> Start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_Ontology
>>>>
>>>>       Alan> -Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Well, it starts of with this....
>>>>
>>>>     "A Formal ontology is an ontology modeled by algorithms. Formal
>>>>     ontologies are founded upon a specific Formal Upper Level  
>>>> Ontology,
>>>>     which provides consistency checks for the entire ontology  
>>>> and, if
>>>>     applied properly, allows the modeler to avoid possibly  
>>>> erroneous
>>>>     ontological assumptions encountered in modeling large-scale
>>>>     ontologies. "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Almost none of which I would agree with.
>>>
>>
>> Bill Bug
>> Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer
>>
>> Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
>> www.neuroterrain.org
>> Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
>> Drexel University College of Medicine
>> 2900 Queen Lane
>> Philadelphia, PA    19129
>> 215 991 8430 (ph)
>> 610 457 0443 (mobile)
>> 215 843 9367 (fax)
>>
>>
>> Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu  
>> <mailto:William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)


Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu