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

RE: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology

From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:13:47 +0000
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124181245.02992530@manchester.ac.uk>
To: "Gao, Yong" <YGAO@PARTNERS.ORG>, "David Decraene" <David@landcglobal.com>, "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

this distinction is quite telling. Putting "define: ontology" into 
Google has very revealling results.

At 15:28 24/01/2007, Gao, Yong wrote:
>Perhaps the terms "formal" and "ontology" should be defined or linked on the
>page? Both terms themselves are quite ambiguous.  The   formal ontology pages
>links to ontology in philosophy 
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology), why not
>the computer science one (
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29)? The 
>term "formal"
>is given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal.
>
>The wikipedia page might need  more than one definitions of "formal 
>ontology" to
>reflect the nature of these concepts.
>
>Yong
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org on behalf of David Decraene
>Sent: Wed 1/24/2007 10:03 AM
>To: Robert Stevens; Phillip Lord; Alan Ruttenberg
>Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
>Subject: RE: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED IN THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS 
>INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND 
>MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED MATERIAL.  ANY REVIEW, 
>RETRANSMISSION, DISSEMINATION OR OTHER USE OF OR TAKING OF ANY 
>ACTION IN RELIANCE UPON, THIS INFORMATION BY PERSONS OR ENTITIES 
>OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS PROHIBITED.  IF YOU RECEIVED 
>THIS INFORMATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER AND THE PRIVACY 
>OFFICER, AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THIS INFORMATION.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 18:14:21 UTC

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