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.

Existential Types are the flip side of generics

Generic types, as can now be seen in all the major programming languages have a flip side that has yet to be widely appreciated: existential types.

Variables whose types are generic may not be modified within a generic function (or class): they can be kept in variables, they can be passed to other functions (provided they too have been supplied to the generic function), but other than that they are opaque. Again, when a generic function (or class) is used, then the actual type binding for the generic must be provided – although that type may also be generic, in which case the enclosing entity must also be generic.

Existential types are often motivated by modules. A module can be seen to be equivalent to a record with its included functions: except that modules also typically encapsulate types too. Abstract data types are a closely related topic that also naturally connect to existential types (there is an old but still very relevant and readable article on the topic Abstract types have …

Concept Oriented Markup

I have long been frustrated with all the different text mark up languages and word processors that I have used. There are many reasons for this; but the biggest issue is that markups (including very powerful ones like TeX) are not targeted at the kind of stuff I write.

Nowadays, it seems archaic to still be thinking in terms of sections and chapters. The world is linked and that applies to the kind of technical writing that I do.

I believe that the issue is fundamental. A concept like "section" is inherently about the structure of a document. But, what I want to focus on are concepts like "example", "definition", and "function type".

A second problem is that, in a complex environment, the range of documentation that is available to an individual reader is actually composed of multiple sources. Javadoc exemplifies this: an individual library may be documented using Javadoc into a single HTML tree. However, most programmers require access to multiple…