Many thanks, Xiaoshu.
It's very helpful to get a sense of the full spectrum of opinion on
this issue.
I would agree for most all the folks on this list - myself included -
the most important aspect of an ontology is to provide a shared
semantics within a computational framework.
I don't
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
A problem I have with the term "formal ontology" is that it seems
redundant: an ontology (in the computer science sense) is already formal
in the same sense as a "formal specification" or a "formal language":
http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/sage/glossary/
[[
Formal
Expressed in a restrict
Thanks, Susie.
Thanks too for the clarification on the "native triple store". I
thought based on the fact there is a triple import mechanism and - as
you said - you are leveraging the native graph processing/indexing
engine already in Oracle - meant the implementation of RDF in Oracle
wa
The URL for Oracle's manual is actually:
http://download.oracle.com/otndocs/tech/semantic_web/pdf/rdfrm.pdf
Cheers,
Susie
William Bug wrote:
Scott has a link up to the Oracle RDF DM
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Hosted_Triple_Store
http://download.oracle.com/otndocs/tech/sem
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 pag
On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
Phil> Hmmm. Sure I wrote more than that in my original email.
Didn't see more. But great that everybody jumped in :)
Phil> Yeah, Robert has my main beef which is the distinction
between the
representation language and the representation i
A lot of confusion might also come from the word 'formal', it must be
interpreted in it's philosophical sense, as the intended wikipedia article
attempted to describe (in a rudimentary manner), e.g. concerning theories of
enduring versus perduring entities, dependent and independents, of inhere
Hmmm. Sure I wrote more than that in my original email.
Yeah, Robert has my main beef which is the distinction between the
representation language and the representation itself. The use of
"algorithms" is clearly wrong and I don't think that an upper ontology
provides consistency checks, nor th
I agree with Phil and Robert.
Even if it does not contain a definition I fully agree with, a slighty
better wikipedia page is [1], which makes a distinction between domain
ontologies and upper ontologies [2].
But I'm just a semantic web girl and not an ontologist...
Irene
[1] http://en.wikipedia
As promised are the links to the relevant literature I discussed
which influenced the development of the POMR ontology:
1) HL7 RIM: An Incoherent Standard
(http://ontology.buffalo.edu/HL7/doublestandards.pdf)
2) Knowledge Representation for Relevance Ranking of Patient-Record Content in
Pri
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
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
acces
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 ontol
Thanks, Carole.
Which reminds me - there were two additional references I'd add to
the bottom of the page:
The Motagues and the Capulets
Carole Goble and Chris Wroe
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109925284/
ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The recent Upper Ontology Summit (M
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/Ontolo
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 i
Bill
Hear hear!! Well said.
Carole
I was thinking initially Phil's concerns may have been more in terms
of the wording used on the page, but Robert makes it more clear the
issues are much more fundamental than that. All of Robert's points
sound very much to the root of why there would be c
I was thinking initially Phil's concerns may have been more in terms
of the wording used on the page, but Robert makes it more clear the
issues are much more fundamental than that. All of Robert's points
sound very much to the root of why there would be concerns this is
not a comprehensive
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 choic
David Decreane from L&C started that page and wrote good part of the content.
I'm passing him your kind comments.
Thanks
Davide
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of William Bug
Sent: Tue 1/23/2007 4:06 PM
To: Alan Ruttenberg
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
Subject: R
'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 m
How would you phrase it?
-Alan
On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
"Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <[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
> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <[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 On
24 matches
Mail list logo
