I'm hearing, as Carole put it. :-)
-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:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
