Re: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology

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> 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