'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.... Anyway, it is bad at almost any level Robert. ,At 13:55 24/01/2007, Phillip Lord wrote: > >>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <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.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 14:45:14 UTC