Hi, Ontology-Medical (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?ontology):
"That department of the science of metaphysics which investigates and explains the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings, as such, or the principles and causes of being" Ontology-Metaphysics (http://skepdic.com/ontology.html): "Ontology is a branch of metaphysics which is concerned with being, including theories of the nature and kinds of being. Monistic ontologies hold that there is only one being, such as Spinoza's theory that God or Nature is the only substance. Pluralistic ontologies hold that there is no unity to Being and that there are numerous kinds of being. Dualism is a kind of pluralistic ontology, maintaining that there are two fundamental kinds of being: mind and body." Ontology vs. metaphysics (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/ontology.html) "Although the term terms "ontology" and "metaphysics" are far from being univocal and determinate in philosophical jargon, an important distinction seems often enough to be marked by them. What we may call ontology is the attempt to say what entities exist. Metaphysics, by contrast, is the attempt to say, of those entities, what they are. In effect, one's ontology is one's list of entities, while one's metaphysics is an explanatory theory about the nature of those entities." COMMENT: Philippe's statement appears appropriate: "... An ontology is too expensive a component to be used if you don't need it. ..." With over 190 nations in the world we could be at the point of defining, clarifying and modifying the definition for some time to come only to be suceeded by many users trying to understand what information was being conveyed. (http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=ontology&OFFID=se1) "... The main obstacle to sharing and reusing medical terminologies is the lack of conceptual integration of terms. Actually the intended meaning of terms is different according to the context in which they appear and to the context of use. ..." (http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/516066.html) -Thomas Clark Philippe AMELINE wrote: > Hi, > >> If the ontology is the listing of "atoms", then Archetypes would appear >> to be the "molecules"... and also something that would be helpful to >> attempt to standardize across the "interoperability region/domain". > > > I am not at ease with this comparison. > > An ontology is "something made to describe" in a given domain. > Since the "atoms" of an ontology are only "words" (with a semantic), > and you need to make "sentences" to express something, the ontology is > not sufficient by itself ; you need a "sentences structure" ; by > example a way to record a document as a tree (made of terms from the > ontology). > Such a system can work alone, since everybody can describe what he > wants (writing on a blank page) - but it lacks control, repeatability, > and so on. > > The Archetypes are "forms molds" (like stamps that print the forms you > want on the blank page, then fill the form). > The Archetypes can work alone (I mean without any ontology) ; you get > control and repeatability. > > So we get two distinct techniques. When do we need/have better mix the > both of it ? > > Clearly, for the ontologists, Archetypes are a good place to store the > control mechanisms and ease further data analysis (due to > repeatibility of the sentences structures : an Archetype is a kind of > pre-elaborated discourse pattern). > > It is harder to explain why Archetypers would need an ontology. In > summary, you need "words" when "signs" are no longer enough ; probably > when you want to have people of different kind share the same > informations. > An ontology is too expensive a component to be used if you don't need it. > > Regards, > > Philippe > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
