Re: [biont] Nice wikipedia page on ontology

Well, I think the discussion is good, but trying to define "exactly"  
what an ontology is will always be a futile attempt.  Just like any 
concept,  we all actually know what we are talking about but cannot give 
it a precise definition. Nevertheless, does it really matter if we can 
define what an ontology is?

For me, an ontology is just an engineer artifact created to be shared.  
If an ontology cannot be shared engineeringly, it is useless.  For 
instance, can we consider an "ontology" defined in OBO to be an 
"ontology" in the semantic web?  I think not because if so, how an RDF 
engine understand it.  So pragmatically in an RDF world, anything in RDF 
is an ontology because it does not matter if it is an "ontology" or a 
"dataset", an RDF engine would have treated them in the same way.  
Consider the following two statement about "http://example.x".

1. http://example.com/x  rdfs:subClassOf   http://example.com/y      
2. http://example.com/x  a http://example.com/c

Will there be any different treatment for an RDF engine? They have to 
dereference the same URI and reason them accordingly, right?  Does it 
matter if we label one as an "ontology" and the other "not"?  This is 
the reason that I still cannot understand the motive behind the design 
of an owl:Ontology, it serves no purpose whatsoever. 
Cheers

Xiaoshu 

William Bug wrote:
> 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>
>>>>     [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>
>>>>>     <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 
> <mailto:William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 04:09:50 UTC