Ontology 101: Difference between revisions
From NCOR Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Ontology Pitfall Scanner: https://oops.linkeddata.es/catalogue.jsp | Ontology Pitfall Scanner: https://oops.linkeddata.es/catalogue.jsp | ||
Definitions and axioms in first-order logic must be kept separate from each other: the definition of a term x is designed to be the shortest and logically simplest specification of necessary and sufficient conditions for being and instance of x. The axioms specify additional distinguishing marks which are seen as holding for all such instances. The advantages of this strategy are: 1. definitions are easy to understand and easy to apply, 2. definitions are more stable in the sense that new kinds of x might be discovered, or might evolve, which falsify one or other axiom, but still satisfy the definition. | |||
Revision as of 16:50, 12 December 2024
- Ontology illustration
- BFO+
- stasis
- process profile
- capability
- system
- realism
- Top-Level Ontology and hub-spokes approach
- universal / instance
- singular nouns
- mass nouns
- GDC, ICE
- dependence
- dispositions and qualities
- capabilities and functions
- roles
- the all-some rule
- single inheritance
- the Aristotle definition of substance rule
- the universal quantification rule (why you can't say 'Tylenol pill' is a 'pill which cures headache')
- the no-multiple-inheritance rule (asserted vs. inferred)
Ontology Pitfall Scanner: https://oops.linkeddata.es/catalogue.jsp
Definitions and axioms in first-order logic must be kept separate from each other: the definition of a term x is designed to be the shortest and logically simplest specification of necessary and sufficient conditions for being and instance of x. The axioms specify additional distinguishing marks which are seen as holding for all such instances. The advantages of this strategy are: 1. definitions are easy to understand and easy to apply, 2. definitions are more stable in the sense that new kinds of x might be discovered, or might evolve, which falsify one or other axiom, but still satisfy the definition.
