W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > January 2007

RE: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology

From: David Decraene <David@landcglobal.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:03:38 +0100
Message-ID: <28A0FFC7AEF0014AA8C2CE543AE13F5B8B8867@x-box.quest.net>
To: "Robert Stevens" <robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk>, "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
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> 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 15:05:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:22 UTC