- From: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:40:43 -0500
- To: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
- Cc: David Decraene <David@landcglobal.com>, Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
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> > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 15:40:58 UTC