SUO: RE: ontology as science
Bill et al,
Two points ...
1. I'm not sure that I fully understand the "ontology is/is not a science" discussions. To be considered as a science, the discipline of ontology would have to be involved in proposing theories that can both explain past observations and make predictions as to future observations. I don't see either of these as being what ontology does (but see point 2).
2. I do see an important relationship between ontology and science, in that the former provides a mechanism for formalizing much of the latter (and, in doing so, providing a useful mechanism for determining inconsistencies within scientific theories, using inferencing to construct experimental conditions under which the predictions of theories can be tested, etc.).
On this basis I see ontology in the same category as mathematics and logic, i.e., as a discpline in its own right and as a tool that supports scientific endevours. John S's point about the use of ontology in the study of meaning may then imply an overloading of the term "ontology" itself (or, rather, the coincidence of the term's original meaning within philosophy and its acquired meaning within computer science*/AI domains) -- i.e., that theories of meaning and variant of meaning arising from scientific study and research ("ontology") can be formally stated as an "ontology". In the first case the "is ontology science?" question is meaningful (and my answer would be "yes"), in the second it is not.
regards
Julian
* maybe my position on this is related to the fact that some 20+ years ago I indulged in several lengthy arguments with my Masters degree supervisor, on the subject of whether computer "science" is in fact a science.
-----Original Message-----
From: Burkett, Bill
Sent: 2003-06-19 22:37
To: Matt Halstead; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: RE: ontology as science (was: Re: SUO: Re: (ELP's summary of
MRW's standards experience))
Hi, Matt --
I really like what you've proposed here -- it resonates very well with my own perspective of the problem. The key feature of your suggestion is "using *my* knowledge of some concept" (emphasis added). I think that the effectiveness/usefullness of ontology has to start with this individualistic "test" and then proceed to the statistical evaluation of the mapping to a more general "community" ontology and thereby "test" the community ontology against the individual ontologies. But the individual "test" is still subjective (I don't think it can ever be "formal"), hence my support of original claim that "ontology is not a science".
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Halstead [mailto:matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Thu 6/19/2003 1:43 PM
To: Burkett, Bill; sowa@bestweb.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: ontology as science (was: Re: SUO: Re: (ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience))
I would suggest another interpretation of the science of #2 and #3 - I think
there are at least two levels of objective tests for these.
1. "using my knowledge of some concept, does an ontology classify to the
correct concept I expect" (the most obvious failure would be it not
containing some property restriction that you thought was necessary and
sufficient.)
2. "what can we hypothesize about what someone(or everyone if you combine
ontologies) says about some concept" - I guess this should be broken into
single ontologies and shared(combined) ontologies.
In #1 we could perhaps test formally against our own ontology, in #2 it
would seem like a few different methods. For single ontologies we can test
for logical consistency, for shared ontologies, we could build statistical
like hypotheses about what people say about something, or, if a shared
ontology is logically consistent, that #1 kinds of test pass or fail, or,
that all people, each with their own mini-ontologies surrounding a concept,
agree or disagree with the shared ontology for that particular concept.
In the end, an ontology is simply a model, just like other models. Various
representations give us different tools to help test the knowledge says what
we think it does.
While the interpretation of labels for concepts can be subjective, ontology
gives you a formal and unambiguous way to represent that interpretation, so
that indeed we can ask questions of this interpretation, and get the same
answer - no matter the person or the time a question is asked.
Matt