[SCL] "ontologies"

[pat hayes]

Gentlemen: I have now heard or read the following assertion several 
times, most recently from Tanel:

"Ontologies are theories of a specific kind."

This idea, I have to say, is completely unknown to me. I am aware of 
the usage (now virtually universal in SW and indeed in KR) whereby 
the original philosophical meaning of 'ontology' has been adapted, or 
if you prefer perverted, to refer to a set of formal sentences. 
However, I am not aware of this further adaptation of the word to 
mean a particular KIND of set of formal sentences. Can anyone 
enlighten me about this? What particular kind of 'module' counts as 
an ontology, and in what community is this usage common?

BTW, the terminology 'theory' is nowhere used outside of logic 
textbooks: at this point, for our intended audience, it is best 
regarded as archaic; if we use it, we will be widely misunderstood 
(and correctly so, since the roots of that usage go back to a time 
when formal logic was intended for a completely different purpose.) I 
am willing to live with 'module', although it smacks of artificiality 
and sets my teeth on edge almost as much as 'ontology' apparently 
does to John's.  And frankly, I think it is foolish to not be willing 
to adapt to what is obviously the current term of choice used 
throughout the rest of the world, even to the point now where it is 
being used in journal and conference titles without comment or 
explanation, simply in order to identify a subdiscipline of computer 
science.

Pat Hayes
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes