- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:25:50 +0000
- To: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> writes: Phil> Yeah, Robert has my main beef which is the distinction >> between the representation language and the representation >> itself. Alan> Yup. Though there is too often a confusion between the Alan> ontology and the representation. In some ways I think that it Alan> is unfortunate that OWL has "Ontology" in it's name. OWL is just following on from common practise. The use of "ontology" by computer science has added to it's original philosophical meaning, which has also resulted in confusion. I tend to use ontologies as computational artifacts, which is by bias. I don't think that there is much that can be done about this now. The (many) uses of the term have got a bit fixed. Phil> The use of "algorithms" is clearly wrong and I don't think >> that an upper ontology provides consistency checks, nor that an >> ontology needs one to be formal. Alan> Algorithm's not a good word. Algorithm has a reasonably tightly defined meaning -- actually wikipedia covers it well. I think that the article just uses it wrong. Still, it's been replaced with "axioms" now. The article struggles towards generating a common understanding. Phil
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 10:26:08 UTC