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

Re: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology

From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:48:24 -0500
Message-Id: <D81A1FAF-B32B-4E39-94E0-BF2B437B9753@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>
To: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
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





Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 15:48:51 UTC

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