Skip to main content

What is an Ontology for?

I am sure that everyone who has ever dabbled in the area of Ontology has been asked that question. Personally, I have never heard a truly convincing response; even though I strongly feel that Ontologies are quite important.

I recently listened to a radio segment in which someone in Algeria (I think) was complaining about the new law that required all teaching to be done in Arabic. It seems that most university-level education is in French, and that many parents try to send their kids to schools that teach in French. The issue was that Arabic simply does not have the vocabulary demanded by a modern high-tech education.

Arabic is not alone in this dilemma: French itself is littered with Les mots Anglais; and English is a true hodge-podge of Anglo-Saxon, French, German, Hindu, Japanese, and many other languages. It often happens that when a culture acquires a set of concepts, it does so in the language of the originators of those concepts. It is often considerably easier to import wholesale a set of concepts (a.k.a. an Ontology) than to laboriously map each term into one's own language; often inventing new words just for the sake of it.

So here it is, modern Ontology languages are tools for capturing a collection of concepts that form a coherent whole. With an ontology you can make sense of something, even to the point of making a living at it; without it you are literally lost for words.

What does that mean? When do you know that you have one of these coherent wholes? Is it useful to be coherent?

I think two concepts are important here: closure and prediction.

A set of concepts (a.k.a. paradigm) is coherent when it is closed under the 'idea completion' mapping. This totally new concept refers to what happens when you take an idea and push it a bit. For example, in the world of plumbing, you have copper pipes (and iron pipes), solder, fittings, faucets, etc. etc. The set of plumber's concepts is closed under the transformations implied by the requirements of moving hot and cold water around the house.

The second concept that is important is prediction. In the case of our plumber's jargon, you can be fairly sure that the problems and the tools you encounter in installing central heating will all have a name. The language of plumbing is at least as important to a plumber as is the wrench and the soldered t-connector; because the language frames the problems as well as the solutions to those problems.

Ontology has its own ontology (it's called eating your own dog food). In this case it is possible to ask if an ontology is consistent, open world or closed world, based on OWL or Common Logic (or Prolog). We also need words and more formal tools to capture the notions of closure and predictiveness.

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Sub-turing complete programming languages

Here is an interesting intuition: the key to liberating software development is to use programming languages that are not, by themselves, turing-complete. That means no loops, no recursion 'in-language'. Why? Two reasons: any program that is subject to the halting problem is inherently unknowable: in general, the only way to know what a turing-complete program means is to run it. This puts very strong limitations on the combinatorics of turing-complete programs and also on the kinds of support tooling that can be provided: effectively, a debugger is about the best that you can do with any reasonable effort. On the other hand, a sub-turing language is also 'decidable'. That means it is possible to predict what it means; and paradoxically, a lot easier to provide a rich environment for it etc. etc. An interesting example of two languages on easier side of the turing fence are TeX and CSS. Both are designed for specifying the layout of text, TeX is turing complete and CSS

On programming languages and the Mac

Every so often I dig out my Xcode stuff and have a go at exploring developing an idea for Mac OS X. Everytime the same thing happens to me: Objective-C is such an offensive language to my sensibilities that I get diverted into doing something else. All the lessons that we have learned the hard way over the years -- the importance of strong static typing, the importance of tools for large scale programming -- seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the Objective-C community. How long did it take to get garbage collection into the language? I also feel that some features of Objective-C represent an inherent security risk (in particular categories) that would make me very nervous to develop a serious application in it. As it happens, I am currently developing a programming language for Complex Event Processing. Almost every choice that I am making in that language is the opposite to the choice made for Objective-C -- my language is strongly, statically typed; it is designed for parallel exe