[xtm-wg] Re: [kmci-Virtual-Chapter] RE: analysis of the meaning of ontology: pdf

[Joe Firestone <eisai@home.com>]

Paul,

Paul Prueitt wrote:
> 
> The ontology itself does not depend on a rule based logic.  For example, the
> ontology related to link analysis of transactions leads to a set of node
> locations and relationships.  This can be converted directly into natural
> language and provided to human as information about the ecosystem related to
> these transactions.
> 
> The application of this type of technology to stock market prediction seems
> to be on the horizon.
> 
> There is no need to represent the rules, just the concepts and some of the
> relationships between concepts.  Let the human do the inference.  The
> "rules" need never be enumerated.

Agreed. In fact if all of the rules are enumerated the Ontology has
become a full-blown model. I think we need to maintain the distinctions
between and Ontology, a Model, and a Theory. An Ontology need specify
few relationships among concepts. It just assetrs what exusts in the
universe of discourse and provides some concept specification. That's
why I suggested in an earlier post that the KLC was an incomplete
specification of an ontology.
> 
> In this way the ontology can stand by itself.
> 
> This is the alternative viewpoint.

It is. I think Waterson and Preece go too far witheir definition of
ontology.

Joe


> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> kmci-Virtual-Chapter-unsubscribe@egroups.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/980740340/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com