Re: SUO: RE: Comment #12 - 'Definition of Ontology'
> .. As a newcomer to the ontological field, I agree the original
> definition is incomplete. However, Chris's suggestion still doesn't
> explain enough for me to get a clear understanding.
I would think not! It wasn't meant to be an explanation, or a suggestion
of any particular wording for the Scope and Purpose, but only an
observation of an inadequacy in the original statement. The original S&P
stated that an ontology is "a set of terms and formal definitions". This
itself is vague, but it suggests that an ontology consists in a set of
primitive, undefined terms (which, of course, there must be in any basic
ontology) and a set of terms that are formally defined in terms of the
primitives. This is woefully inadequate, on several counts. Most
seriously, so understood, ontologies are meaningless, devoid of content.
Note that on the standard notion of definition, definitions are
"conservative", in that (roughly) they do not enable you to prove anything
that you couldn't prove before you had the definitions. Hence, a mere
list of primitives plus definitions gives you no more than just the list
of primitives, and a list of primitives *alone* is meaningless. What's
missing, of course, are the *axioms* (or principles, or whatever you
want to call them) that capture the fundamental properties of, and
logical relations among, the chosen primitives.
Here's a simple example. Suppose I give you the primitives "Number",
"0", and "s" (aka "successor"). Now I'll give you some definitions:
1 =df s0
2 =df s1
3 =df s2
...
10 =df s9
There's my ontology. Some primitives and some formal definitions. Nice
and clear, and completely useless until I add some axioms that
characterize their intended meanings, e.g.,
0 is a Number.
No two distinct Numbers have the same successor.
0 is no Number's successor.
And so on.
> I would still like to simplify the language we are using, so we can
> more simply and clearly articulate the project.
>
> . I suggest such a language needs to include:
> * a simplified vocabulary - in terms of both lexicon and semantics,
> basically with clear and precise definitions and without metaphors or other
> devices that add to ambiguity; and
> * a logical grammar or syntax.
That ontologies would be expressed in a logical language (and perhaps
informally in less rigorous languages as well) I believe has been a
presupposition all along. There seemed to be some fairly broad
agreement to use the simplified verions of KIF that can be found by
following the link on the SUO homepage.
Regards,
Chris Menzel
--
Christopher Menzel # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net: chris.menzel@tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-4237 # vox: (979) 845-8764