Ontolog Forum - User contributions [en]

Ontology(IT)

2026-04-09T19:25:56Z

Ashkotin: added - not finished

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.
 '''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!
 '''DB''' - database.
 '''KB''' - knowledge base.
 '''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.
 '''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".
 Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.
 If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".
 End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.
 '''General abbr'''
 ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???
__TOC__
== goto ==
Collector, please visit:
 -DOL, TLO
 -every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]
 Points has been visited see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#Appendix_A._Collections_used]

== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==
see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/%22DEFINITIONs._rules_and_tasks%22 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]

== Distinguishing properties ==
Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.

=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===
9. Reiterating criteria clearly
 Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:
 A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:
 <ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>
That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.
The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.
 Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.

== COLLECTION ==
The years should be in order - the last two digits.

=== GRB93 ===
An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.
 [https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.

=== (Z)NG98 ===
An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.
 12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.
 [http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

==== Comments ====
<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>

=== JS00 ===
A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.
 '''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.

==== Comments ====
AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]

=== WebONT03 ===
In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.
 [https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW

==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====
Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

==== Comments ====
'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])
 '''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== BL04 ===
The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.
 '''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))

==== Comments ====
AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]

=== SKSC06 ===
An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]
 [http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

=== WIKIP ===
(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].
 (2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.
 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]

==== Comments ====
Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."
 +get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]
 +see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]

=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===
A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.
 [https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/7aaKsG5mS1U/m/NA-pyb7iAAAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA

== related terms ==
=== conceptualization ===
"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]

=== formal language ===
AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.

=== formal vocabulary ===
see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]
=== model ===
see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== ontological commitment ===
see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]
 === theory ===
 , logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

== DISCUSSION ==

=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===
3. On Contradiction and Completeness
 You raise an important philosophical question:
 <blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.
 An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.
 It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:
 <ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>
 It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.
 So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”
 I would define it as:
 <blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.
 Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.

=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===
"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>
They are not the same category.
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>
<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>
"
"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.
It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.
<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>
<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>
"
"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.
But many do not.
Why? Because they often:
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>
A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.
A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.
So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>
Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).
"
"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.
Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992
"
"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.
A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.
 This is the same distinction between:
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>
Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>
"

=== Classification notes ===

=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===
(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.

=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===
[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>
 This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.
 The differentiator is not:
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>
 The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.
 This distinction appears in:
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>
 The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>
<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>

== Person IDs ==
in ABC order.

=== AS Alex Shkotin ===
[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]
 Independent Computer Scientist
 [https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]
 [https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT

=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===
[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]

=== JA John Antill ===
MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS
 MS AI Student at Purdue
 256-541-1229
 [mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]

=== JS John Sowa ===
[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]

=== KB Ken Baclawski ===
[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]

=== NG Nicola Guarino ===
(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it

=== TG Thomas Gruber ===
[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]
 [[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]
 [https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]

== Appendix A. Collections used ==

=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===
[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]

=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===
[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

[[Category:Definition]]

"DEFINITIONs. rules and tasks"

2026-04-09T18:46:17Z

Ashkotin: added

This document is a collection of rules to keep a collection of definitions.
 '''Abbreviations to use in collection'''
 '''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself there!
 '''DB''' - database.
 '''KB''' - knowledge base.
 '''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.
 '''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, keep "???".
 Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.
 If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".
 End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.
 '''General abbr'''
 ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==
Every definition is a unique unit of knowledge. In the collection, we keep attributes for reference to real where a definition does exist, reference to the author of it to ask and discuss.
 Classification of definitions is a separate artefact with one or more authors involved. Ad should be kept out of the collection using a reference by collection ID of a definition.


=== (Rcf) canonical form of definition ===
We need canonical form when definition is embedded in text, but we need it separately.
 See examples: [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#canonical_form IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== (Rca) collector action ===
The collector acts strictly formally: he transfers the author's definition from the original source in its entirety. If the text is transferred with modifications, the transferred part is enclosed in "". By finding this part in the source, anyone can verify that the changes only affected the form.


=== (Rdc) definition ''must be'' complete ===
From description to definition: It is usually easy to describe something preliminary, the definition must be complete.


=== (Roaod) one author one definition ===
There should be a very clear reason to keep more than one definition from an author in a collection.
 ''Example-1''. JA must consolidate all his definitions in one for every collection ([https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Knowledge_base#JA_group_of_definitions IT-knowledge base DEFINITIONs] [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#JA_group_of_definitions IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]). Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.
 Presumably every of five his current definitions of ontology must be derived from a consolidated one.
 For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:
 If JA004 then JA001.
 i.e.
 If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.
 THEN
 X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== (do-topic)2the_[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/WikiHomePage site] ===
AS2KB\4.4.2026:Once the document is stabilized, I think we'll need to discuss how to publish its information on the website. A radical idea is to have each definition on a separate page. And some overview pages, too. Furthermore, it's unclear whether we should have a section in the left-hand menu, for example, called Dictionary.
 There's a problem with definitions proposed by a specific individual: they shouldn't change them once they're published. It's their opinion at a given moment, which they've decided to publish. But they can, of course, publish a new definition. We need to develop rules for publishing and maintaining definitions on the website.
 So we have an article about KB, and a collection of definitions.
 For me, the most valuable thing is the collection.


== Person IDs ==
in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===
[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]
 Independent Computer Scientist
 [https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]
 [https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===
[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===
MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS
 MS AI Student at Purdue
 256-541-1229
 [mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===
[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]

[[Category:Definition]]

"DEFINITIONs. rules and tasks"

2026-04-09T16:00:05Z

Ashkotin: space lines eliminated

This document is a collection of rules to keep a collection of definitions.
'''Abbreviations to use in collection'''
'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself there!
'''DB''' - database.
'''KB''' - knowledge base.
'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.
'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, keep "???".
Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.
If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".
End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.
'''General abbr'''
ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==
Every definition is a unique unit of knowledge. In the collection, we keep attributes for reference to real where a definition does exist, reference to the author of it to ask and discuss.
Classification of definitions is a separate artefact with one or more authors involved. Ad should be kept out of the collection using a reference by collection ID of a definition.


=== (Rcf) canonical form of definition ===
We need canonical form when definition is embedded in text, but we need it separately.
See examples: [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#canonical_form IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== (Rca) collector action ===
The collector acts strictly formally: he transfers the author's definition from the original source in its entirety. If the text is transferred with modifications, the transferred part is enclosed in "". By finding this part in the source, anyone can verify that the changes only affected the form.


=== (Rdc) definition ''must be'' complete ===
From description to definition: It is usually easy to describe something preliminary, the definition must be complete.


=== (Roaod) one author one definition ===
There should be a very clear reason to keep more than one definition from an author in a collection.
''Example-1''. JA must consolidate all his definitions in one for every collection ([https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Knowledge_base#JA_group_of_definitions IT-knowledge base DEFINITIONs] [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#JA_group_of_definitions IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]). Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.
Presumably every of five his current definitions of ontology must be derived from a consolidated one.
For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:
If JA004 then JA001.
i.e.
If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.
THEN
X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== (do-topic)2the_[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/WikiHomePage site] ===
AS2KB\4.4.2026:Once the document is stabilized, I think we'll need to discuss how to publish its information on the website. A radical idea is to have each definition on a separate page. And some overview pages, too. Furthermore, it's unclear whether we should have a section in the left-hand menu, for example, called Dictionary.
There's a problem with definitions proposed by a specific individual: they shouldn't change them once they're published. It's their opinion at a given moment, which they've decided to publish. But they can, of course, publish a new definition. We need to develop rules for publishing and maintaining definitions on the website.
So we have an article about KB, and a collection of definitions.
For me, the most valuable thing is the collection.


== Person IDs ==
in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===
[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]
Independent Computer Scientist
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]
[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===
[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===
MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS
MS AI Student at Purdue
256-541-1229
[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===
[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]

[[Category:Definition]]

Knowledge base

2026-04-06T09:15:46Z

Ashkotin: TK's def added

Knowledge base

2026-04-02T18:18:24Z

Ashkotin: BL consolidated

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-31T13:01:39Z

Ashkotin: JA defs consolidated by AI

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#Appendix_A._Collections_used]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/%22DEFINITIONs._rules_and_tasks%22 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== COLLECTION ==

The years should be in order - the last two digits.


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== JS00 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/7aaKsG5mS1U/m/NA-pyb7iAAAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

[[Category:Definition]]

Knowledge base

2026-03-31T12:49:45Z

Ashkotin: JA defs consolidated

Knowledge base

2026-03-28T19:53:28Z

Ashkotin:

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-28T19:51:08Z

Ashkotin:

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#Appendix_A._Collections_used]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/%22DEFINITIONs._rules_and_tasks%22 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== COLLECTION ==

The years should be in order - the last two digits.


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== JS00 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


== JA group of definitions ==

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== JA001! ===

Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA002! ===

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA003! ===

A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


==== Comments: ====

<AS:See also [[#ja2-it-ontology-intended-to|here]].>


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA005! ===

IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

[[Category:Definition]]

Category:Definition

2026-03-28T15:48:50Z

Ashkotin:

This document [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/%22DEFINITIONs._rules_and_tasks%22] is an instruction.

"DEFINITIONs. rules and tasks"

2026-03-28T12:52:08Z

Ashkotin: version one

This document is a collection of rules to keep a collection of definitions.

'''Abbreviations to use in collection'''

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself there!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, keep "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

Every definition is a unique unit of knowledge. In the collection, we keep attributes for reference to real where a definition does exist, reference to the author of it to ask and discuss.

Classification of definitions is a separate artefact with one or more authors involved. Ad should be kept out of the collection using a reference by collection ID of a definition.


=== (Rcf) canonical form of definition ===

We need canonical form when definition is embedded in text, but we need it separately.

See examples: [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#canonical_form IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== (Rca) collector action ===

The collector acts strictly formally: he transfers the author's definition from the original source in its entirety. If the text is transferred with modifications, the transferred part is enclosed in "". By finding this part in the source, anyone can verify that the changes only affected the form.


=== (Rdc) definition ''must be'' complete ===

From description to definition: It is usually easy to describe something preliminary, the definition must be complete.


=== (Roaod) one author one definition ===

There should be a very clear reason to keep more than one definition from an author in a collection.

''Example-1''. JA must consolidate all his definitions in one for every collection ([https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Knowledge_base#JA_group_of_definitions IT-knowledge base DEFINITIONs] [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#JA_group_of_definitions IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]). Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions of ontology must be derived from a consolidated one.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

i.e.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== (do-topic)2the_[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/WikiHomePage site] ===

AS2KB\4.4.2026:Once the document is stabilized, I think we'll need to discuss how to publish its information on the website. A radical idea is to have each definition on a separate page. And some overview pages, too. Furthermore, it's unclear whether we should have a section in the left-hand menu, for example, called Dictionary.

There's a problem with definitions proposed by a specific individual: they shouldn't change them once they're published. It's their opinion at a given moment, which they've decided to publish. But they can, of course, publish a new definition. We need to develop rules for publishing and maintaining definitions on the website.

So we have an article about KB, and a collection of definitions.

For me, the most valuable thing is the collection.


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]

[[Category:Definition]]

Knowledge base

2026-03-26T13:01:44Z

Ashkotin: first cut

Category:Definition

2026-03-25T19:46:00Z

Ashkotin: Created page with "This document [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0] may be should be here."

This document [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0] may be should be here.

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-25T19:39:30Z

Ashkotin:

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#Appendix_A._Collections_used]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== COLLECTION ==

The years should be in order - the last two digits.


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== JS00 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


== JA group of definitions ==

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== JA001! ===

Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA002! ===

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA003! ===

A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


==== Comments: ====

<AS:See also [[#ja2-it-ontology-intended-to|here]].>


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA005! ===

IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

[[Category:Definition]]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-25T09:48:58Z

Ashkotin: reordering sub-sections

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#Appendix_A._Collections_used]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== COLLECTION ==

The years should be in order - the last two digits.


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== JS00 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


== JA group of definitions ==

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== JA001! ===

Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA002! ===

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA003! ===

A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


==== Comments: ====

<AS:See also [[#ja2-it-ontology-intended-to|here]].>


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA005! ===

IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-25T09:15:23Z

Ashkotin:

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#Appendix_A._Collections_used]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== COLLECTION ==

The years should be in order - the last two digits.


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== JS2000 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


== JA group of definitions ==

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== JA001! ===

Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA002! ===

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA003! ===

A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


==== Comments: ====

<AS:See also [[#ja2-it-ontology-intended-to|here]].>


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA005! ===

IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-25T09:12:13Z

Ashkotin: reordering sections

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jdhizuclqahi IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== COLLECTION ==

The years should be in order - the last two digits.


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== JS2000 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


== JA group of definitions ==

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== JA001! ===

Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA002! ===

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA003! ===

A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


==== Comments: ====

<AS:See also [[#ja2-it-ontology-intended-to|here]].>


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA005! ===

IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-22T16:03:02Z

Ashkotin:

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jdhizuclqahi IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== COLLECTION ==


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== JS2000 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


== JA group of definitions ==

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== JA001! ===

Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA002! ===

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA003! ===

A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


==== Comments: ====

<AS:See also [[#ja2-it-ontology-intended-to|here]].>


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA005! ===

IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-22T15:59:56Z

Ashkotin: TOC and headers done

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

AND MUST BE MOVED TO [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT) https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)]

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

== goto ==

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jdhizuclqahi IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== Rules to keep collection and discussion ==

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]


== Distinguishing properties ==

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.


=== +$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2] ===

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:

A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:

<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li></li>
<li><blockquote>Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</blockquote></li></ol>

That does not require Hermit. 
It does not exclude Prolog. 
It does require logical formalization.

The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong. 
It is about ISO defining a superset category.

Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.


== related terms ==

=== conceptualization ===

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]


=== formal language ===

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.


=== formal vocabulary ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== model ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== ontological commitment ===

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

=== theory ===

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


== DISCUSSION ==


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology intended to… ===

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

You raise an important philosophical question:

<blockquote>Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?
</blockquote>
My answer is: no.

An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Constrain interpretation,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Enable logical consequence,</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Make commitments explicit.</blockquote></li></ul>

It may be incomplete. 
It may contain modeling errors. 
It may require revision.

So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”

I would define it as:

<blockquote>A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.
</blockquote>
It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.

Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.


=== (JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around ===

"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Vocabulary (classes, properties)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</blockquote></li></ul>

They are not the same category.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</blockquote></li></ul>

"

"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.

But many do not.

Why? Because they often:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</blockquote></li></ul>

A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.

A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.

So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.” 
It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</blockquote></li></ul>

Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).

"

"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.

Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992

"

"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology. 
It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.

This is the same distinction between:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Mathematical truth</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>A formal proof in a specified logical system</blockquote></li></ul>

Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</blockquote></li></ul>

"


=== Classification notes ===


=== Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology ===

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.


=== (JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology” ===

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.

The differentiator is not:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Whether inference occurs</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether rules exist</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</blockquote></li></ul>

The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.

This distinction appears in:

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>The W3C OWL specifications</blockquote></li></ul>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</blockquote></li></ul>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</blockquote></li></ul>


== COLLECTION ==


=== GRB93 ===

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ '''URL'''] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.


=== JS2000 ===

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#js-john-sowa|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]


=== BL04 ===

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))


==== Comments ====

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]


=== SKSC06 ===

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.


=== (Z)NG98 ===

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf '''URL'''] '''PID''':[[#ng-nicola-guarino|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.


==== Comments ====

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>


=== WebONT03 ===

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW


==== [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form] ====

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.


==== Comments ====

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]


=== WIKIP ===

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) URL]


==== Comments ====

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]


== JA group of definitions ==

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.


=== JA001! ===

Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA002! ===

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA003! ===

A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


==== Comments: ====

<AS:See also [[#ja2-it-ontology-intended-to|here]].>


=== JA004! AS:🏅 ===

A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


=== JA005! ===

IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ '''URL'''] '''PID''':JA


== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.


=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT


=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]


=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]


=== JS John Sowa ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]


=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski]


=== NG Nicola Guarino ===

(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it


=== TG Thomas Gruber ===

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[File:vertopal_e3dcf0d2d79e4a57a828e871a0b6a6e7/media/image1.png|495x455px]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]


== Appendix A. Collections used ==


=== Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA) ===

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]


=== Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain ===

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-19T18:51:22Z

Ashkotin: __TOC__

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

__TOC__

'''goto'''

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jdhizuclqahi IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''Rules to keep collection and discussion'''

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]

'''Distinguishing properties'''

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.

'''+$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2]

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

<div style="color:#222222;">Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:</div># <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;"></div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</div>

That does not require Hermit.It does not exclude Prolog.It does require logical formalization.

<div style="color:#222222;">The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong.It is about ISO defining a superset category.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.</div>

'''related terms'''

'''conceptualization'''

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]

'''formal language'''

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.

'''formal vocabulary'''

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''model'''

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''ontological commitment'''

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''theory'''

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''DISCUSSION'''

'''(JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology '''intended to…

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

<div style="color:#222222;">You raise an important philosophical question:</div>

<div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.058cm;margin-right:1.058cm;">Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">My answer is: no.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.</div>

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Constrain interpretation,</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Enable logical consequence,</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Make commitments explicit.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">It may be incomplete.It may contain modeling errors.It may require revision.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”</div>

I would define it as:

<div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.058cm;margin-right:1.058cm;">A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.</div>

'''(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around'''

<div style="color:#222222;">"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Vocabulary (classes, properties)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">They are not the same category.</div>* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</div>

* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</div>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

<div style="color:#222222;">It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</div>

* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.</div>

But many do not.

<div style="color:#222222;">Why? Because they often:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.”It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992 </div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology.It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">This is the same distinction between:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Mathematical truth</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">A formal proof in a specified logical system</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.</div>* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</div>

* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

'''Classification notes'''

'''Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology'''

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.

'''(JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology”'''

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

<div style="color:#222222;">This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">The differentiator is not:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Whether inference occurs</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Whether rules exist</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">This distinction appears in:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Gruber (1993)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Guarino (1998)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The W3C OWL specifications</div>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</div>
* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</div>

* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;"></div>

'''COLLECTION'''

'''GRB93'''

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ URL] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.

'''JS2000'''

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#houv0733s2je|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]

'''BL04'''

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]

'''SKSC06'''

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf URL] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

'''(Z)NG98'''

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf URL] '''PID''':[[#m9hc1gl49j34|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>

'''WebONT03'''

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW

<div style="color:#666666;">[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form]</div>

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''WIKIP'''

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29 URL]

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]

'''JA group of definitions'''

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

<div style="color:#222222;">THEN</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.</div>

'''JA001!'''

<div style="color:#222222;">Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.</div>

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] '''PID''':JA

'''JA002!'''

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] '''PID''':JA

'''JA003!'''

<div style="color:#222222;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:1.058cm;">A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.</div>

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ URL] '''PID''':JA

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments:'''</div>

<AS:See also [[#o8vrmsb98xgy|here]].>

'''JA004! AS:🏅'''

<div style="color:#222222;">A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.</div>

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ URL] '''PID''':JA

'''JA005!'''

<div style="color:#222222;">IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".</div>

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ URL] '''PID''':JA

'''Person IDs'''

in ABC order.

'''AS Alex Shkotin'''

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT

'''BL Ben Lutkevich'''

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]

'''JA John Antill'''

<div style="color:#222222;">MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS</div>

MS AI Student at Purdue

<div style="color:#222222;">256-541-1229</div>

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com] 

'''JS John Sowa'''

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]

'''KB Ken Baclawski'''

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski] 

'''NG Nicola Guarino'''

<div style="color:#222222;">(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it</div>

'''TG Thomas Gruber'''

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[Image:image1.png.png|top]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]

'''Appendix A. Collections used'''

'''Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA)'''

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]

'''Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain'''

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-19T17:48:37Z

Ashkotin: from odt by LiberOffice

This document is a collection of definitions from different sources.

'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!

'''DB''' - database.

'''KB''' - knowledge base.

'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

'''General abbr'''

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

'''goto'''

Collector, please visit:

-DOL, TLO

-every onto language or family: DL, OWL2, CL, [http://hets.eu/ hets.eu]

Points has been visited see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jdhizuclqahi IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''Rules to keep collection and discussion'''

see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0 DEFINITIONs. rules & tasks]

'''Distinguishing properties'''

Here we collect various ways to distinguish whether a KB is an ontology. And any useful ideas.

'''+$+VERSION#1(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 2]

9. Reiterating criteria clearly

<div style="color:#222222;">Based on ISO and ontology engineering literature, we can state:</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A knowledge base becomes an ontology when:</div># <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;"></div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Its vocabulary explicitly defines domain classes and relations (Gruber 1993; Studer et al. 1998).</div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Its assertions are intended as domain axioms expressing ontological commitment (Guarino 1998).</div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The representation language has formal declarative semantics independent of execution strategy (Tarski 1956; OWL 2 Direct Semantics 2012).</div>
# <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Inference derives from logical consequence under that semantics (Baader et al. 2003).</div>

That does not require Hermit.It does not exclude Prolog.It does require logical formalization.

<div style="color:#222222;">The disagreement here is not about ISO being wrong.It is about ISO defining a superset category.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Ontology, in the semantic-technology sense, is a stricter subclass of knowledge base.</div>

'''related terms'''

'''conceptualization'''

"A body of formally represented knowledge is based on a conceptualization: the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold them (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987). A conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowledge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285158664_A_Translation_Approach_to_Formal_Ontologies TG]

'''formal language'''

AS: Chris Mungall has ontology on Python. Some Prolog programs are not ontology.

'''formal vocabulary'''

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''model'''

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''ontological commitment'''

see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''theory'''

, logical see in [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6miig72wu0rq IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''DISCUSSION'''

'''(JA)[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ 2] IT-ontology '''intended to…

3. On Contradiction and Completeness

<div style="color:#222222;">You raise an important philosophical question:</div>

<div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.058cm;margin-right:1.058cm;">Is the IT-ontology complete and non-contradictory knowledge about the domain?</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">My answer is: no.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">An IT-ontology is not complete knowledge. It is not guaranteed consistent in practice. It is not a total theory of a domain.</div>

It is a '''formalized conceptual model''' intended to:* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Constrain interpretation,</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Enable logical consequence,</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Make commitments explicit.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">It may be incomplete.It may contain modeling errors.It may require revision.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">So I would not define IT-ontology as “complete knowledge.”</div>

I would define it as:

<div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.058cm;margin-right:1.058cm;">A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">It is closer to a theory schema than to a complete theory.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Your formulation — “a theory or model for theory” — is actually very close to how ontology engineers think about it.</div>

'''(JA)[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer 1] topics around'''

<div style="color:#222222;">"That is why ontology engineers distinguish:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Vocabulary (classes, properties)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Axioms (subsumption, equivalence, restrictions)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Rules (SWRL, production rules, etc.)</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">They are not the same category.</div>* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Baader et al., ''The Description Logic Handbook'' (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</div>

* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The W3C OWL 2 Structural Specification (2012) clearly distinguishes class axioms and property axioms from rule extensions such as SWRL.</div>

"

"So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.

<div style="color:#222222;">It depends on whether the representation language has well-defined declarative semantics.</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The OWL 2 Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation, 2012) provides a model-theoretic semantics independent of any specific reasoner.</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Description logic semantics are formally defined in Baader et al. (2003).</div>

* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.</div>

But many do not.

<div style="color:#222222;">Why? Because they often:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Mix domain knowledge with control strategy</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Use procedural constructs (cuts, ordering effects)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Lack explicit ontological commitments (identity criteria, typing discipline, subsumption structure)</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A clean, purely declarative first-order theory encoded in Prolog syntax could absolutely count as an ontology.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A heuristic expert system implemented in Prolog typically would not.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">So the issue is not “Prolog vs OWL.”It is declarative domain theory vs procedural problem-solving system.</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Mix domain knowledge with control strategy (Lloyd 1987).</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Depend on operational features such as ordering and cut (Kowalski 1979).</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Lack explicit ontological commitments in the sense articulated by Guarino (1998).</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"So again, the distinction hinges on logical formalization, not file format.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Hets (Mossakowski, Maeder & Lüttich, 2007, TACAS) is grounded in institution theory (Goguen & Burstall, 1992 </div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">A conceptual model written in English may describe an ontology.It is not an ontology artifact until formalized.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">This is the same distinction between:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Mathematical truth</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">A formal proof in a specified logical system</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">Ontology engineering operates in the latter space.</div>* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Noy & McGuinness (2001), ''Ontology Development 101'', emphasize formal class and property specification.</div>

* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information'', distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

'''Classification notes'''

'''Consolidated Decision: Base Definition for IT-ontology'''

(AS)Starter: formal ontology is a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gzOI6eiFgYcOBkmWNEE1iyov5gQejwqaAdXu9siT3g/edit?tab=t.0 KB] where knowledge is fully structured and formalized as much as possible.

'''(JA) “Ontology is a knowledge base, but not every knowledge base is an ontology”'''

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] <'''AS''':text has hints to definition sources>

<div style="color:#222222;">This is not a rhetorical move. It is a distinction established in the ontology engineering community.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">The differentiator is not:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Whether inference occurs</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Whether rules exist</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Whether a reasoner like Hermit can process it</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">The differentiator is whether the artifact is a formal specification of a conceptualization, not merely a rule-based problem-solving system.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">This distinction appears in:</div>* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Gruber (1993)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Guarino (1998)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998)</div>
* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">The W3C OWL specifications</div>

The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” ''Knowledge Acquisition''.</div>
* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” ''Data & Knowledge Engineering''.</div>

* <div style="color:#222222;margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;">Guarino (1998), “Formal Ontology in Information Systems,” FOIS 1998.</div>

<div style="color:#222222;"></div>

'''COLLECTION'''

'''GRB93'''

An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ URL] '''PID''':TG '''bref''':Thomas R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.

'''JS2000'''

A catalog of the types of things that are assumed to exist in a domain of interest D from the perspective of a person who uses a language L for the purpose of talking about [the domain] D.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':[[#houv0733s2je|JS]] '''bref''': John F. Sowa, "Knowledge Representation - Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations", 2000, P.492.

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][4]

'''BL04'''

The catalogue of concepts (constants, relations, functions, etc.) used to represent knowledge about a problem domain.

'''URL''':??? '''PID''':NA '''bref''': (p.44, "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING" by Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque (2004))

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

AS:from [https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Ontology IAOAcat][5]

'''SKSC06'''

An ontology is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2005-6-5-r46&hl=ru&sa=T&oi=gsr-r&ct=res&cd=0&d=16751037037460356545&ei=dlKtad7EJqqtieoPjb_p6QE&scisig=AFtJQiwhACheRjpf7pzpfYa-w_rt 13]

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf URL] '''PID''':NA '''bref''': p.61(5) Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., Ceusters, W. Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain. KR-MED 2006 “Biomedical Ontology in Action”. November 8, 2006, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

'''(Z)NG98'''

An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the ''intended meaning'' of a formal vocabulary12, i.e. its ''ontological commitment'' to a particular ''conceptualization'' of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its ontological commitment. An ontology indirectly reflects this commitment (and the underlying conceptualization) by approximating these intended models.

12 Not necessarily this formal vocabulary will be part of a logical language: for example, it may be a protocol of communication between agents.

[http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/Papers/FOIS98.pdf URL] '''PID''':[[#m9hc1gl49j34|NG]] '''bref''': p(5) in Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino, N., editor, Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Frontiers in Artificial intelligence and Applications, pages 3-15. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

<AS:This definition is not in a normal form, for example: "i.e." must be eliminated, description of models is not a part of definition, etc. BUT the text cited is a NG's way to define, as he wrote: "With these clarifications, we come up to the following definition, which refines Gruber’s definition by making clear the difference between an ontology and a conceptualization:" In such a case we need to get a "normal" or '''canonical form''' of definition.>

'''WebONT03'''

In the contest of this work, we refer to what is sometimes called a "structural" ontology -- a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

[https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter URL] PID:WWW

<div style="color:#666666;">[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbLgXo02Qc5UBK29wDYRpbnTCQwfnQ9ZHikU_KDZFro/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qv41al5m2ame canonical form]</div>

Ontology is a machine readable set of definitions that create a taxonomy of classes and subclasses and relationships between them.

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

'''JA''':In the context of OWL (Web Ontology Language) an ontology is equivalent to a Description Logic knowledge base. (Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, 2003, 1(1):7. ([http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf paper])

'''AS''':In this paper it's supposed that we know what ontology is. Paper has a URL to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2e4832wh4d IT-ontology DEFINITIONs]

'''WIKIP'''

(1)an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse].

(2)an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29 URL]

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments'''</div>

Citation:"In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science], an '''ontology''' encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area."

+get defs from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29#Formal_ontology]

+see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology]

'''JA group of definitions'''

AS:JA must consolidate all his definitions in one. Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions must be derived from consolidated.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

etc.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

<div style="color:#222222;">THEN</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.</div>

'''JA001!'''

<div style="color:#222222;">Ontology – formal semantic model enabling logical inference.</div>

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTd%3DMPKG1E0u9hfYpBDYhZ3xN_Mggj-MUe_-En-M%2BtdkBg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] '''PID''':JA

'''JA002!'''

An ontology in IT is a formal artifact with explicit semantics.

[https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAG%3D%3DwTdnUH7L9PRKyDcKAchQU1V1_Hcth1G8%2BXt-rfL%3DZtdFfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer URL] '''PID''':JA

'''JA003!'''

<div style="color:#222222;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:1.058cm;">A formally specified conceptualization expressed in a representation language with explicit semantics.</div>

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ URL] '''PID''':JA

<div style="color:#666666;">'''Comments:'''</div>

<AS:See also [[#o8vrmsb98xgy|here]].>

'''JA004! AS:🏅'''

<div style="color:#222222;">A knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.</div>

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ URL] '''PID''':JA

'''JA005!'''

<div style="color:#222222;">IT ontology "is a formally encoded artifact with defined semantics".</div>

[https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/x_WyrRsN7Q4/m/idjVyyQyAQAJ URL] '''PID''':JA

'''Person IDs'''

in ABC order.

'''AS Alex Shkotin'''

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org Alex Shkotin]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ Linkedin] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin RGate] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin Academia.edu]

[https://ontologforum.com/ Ontolog] BoT

'''BL Ben Lutkevich'''

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich]

'''JA John Antill'''

<div style="color:#222222;">MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA & KT, KCS</div>

MS AI Student at Purdue

<div style="color:#222222;">256-541-1229</div>

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com] 

'''JS John Sowa'''

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa https://ontologforum.com/index.php/JohnSowa]

'''KB Ken Baclawski'''

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski] 

'''NG Nicola Guarino'''

<div style="color:#222222;">(1998)National Research Council, LADSEB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, I-35127 Padova, Italy. guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it</div>

'''TG Thomas Gruber'''

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Gruber-10]

[[Image:image1.png.png|top]]

[https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/ https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993/]

'''Appendix A. Collections used'''

'''Terms for Central General Notions(IAOA)'''

[https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List https://wiki.iaoa.org/index.php/Edu:Term_List]

'''Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain'''

[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf]

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-19T15:48:13Z

Ashkotin: first block done

DEFINITIONs

This page will keep this [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?usp=sharing g-doc]
'''DiU''' - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself!
'''DB''' - database.
'''KB''' - knowledge base.
'''PID''' - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.
'''bref''' - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".
Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.
If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".
End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.
'''General abbr'''
ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???
<ETC>

Ontology(IT)

2026-03-19T15:34:41Z

Ashkotin: moving from g-docs

DEFINITIONs
This page will keep this [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6vKV2FUly17U-gS7Sgzc67BxZUZz7h7mr6GJC9KexU/edit?usp=sharing g-doc]

AlexShkotin

2023-01-26T10:23:55Z

Ashkotin:

See CV on [https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ LinkedIn].

See reports: RG [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin],
academia.edu [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin].

[[Category:Person]]

Talk:WikiHomePage

2023-01-12T09:27:51Z

Ashkotin:

Discuss the definition(s) of Ontology.

I would like to see Nicola Guarino's definitions (of Ontology) included on the main page:

"An ontology makes explicit people's distinctions and assumptions about the nature and structure of a portion of the world (the domain of discourse)

A computational ontology is an engineered artifact representing an intended interpretation of a vocabulary in a machine-readable form distinguishing and describing the nature and structure of a domain of discourse"

[[AlexShkotin]]
I would like to emphasize on this main page that our ONTOLOG community is primarily an engineering community. The terminological coincidence of our abbreviated term "ontology" from the full term "formal ontology", which is actually equivalent to the not so inspiring term "knowledge base", should not lead us into the special philosophical discipline of ontology. For which, in extreme cases, we can create a special section.

NG description is too abstract: distinctions, assumptions does not mean ontology - we make these every days a lot. And "the nature", "structure" - what about a way of movement "of a portion of the world"...

Talk:WikiHomePage

2023-01-12T09:17:59Z

Ashkotin:

Talk:WikiHomePage

2023-01-12T09:12:24Z

Ashkotin: the main point of ONTOLOG

Discuss the definition(s) of Ontology.

I would like to see Nicola Guarino's definitions (of Ontology) included on the main page:

"An ontology makes explicit people's distinctions and assumptions about the nature and structure of a portion of the world (the domain of discourse)

A computational ontology is an engineered artifact representing an intended interpretation of a vocabulary in a machine-readable form distinguishing and describing the nature and structure of a domain of discourse"

[[AShkotin]]
I would like to emphasize on this main page that our ONTOLOG community is primarily an engineering community. The terminological coincidence of our abbreviated term "ontology" from the full term "formal ontology", which is actually equivalent to the not so inspiring term "knowledge base", should not lead us into the special philosophical discipline of ontology. For which, in extreme cases, we can create a special section.

Category:Project

2023-01-07T05:55:56Z

Ashkotin: let's begin

This is the category of projects. Each page with this category is the namesake page of the project, as an activity in time with deliverables as a goal. The positive results of the projects should have categories Tool, Ontology, etc. as appropriate.

BarrySmith

2023-01-07T05:36:33Z

Ashkotin:

= Barry Smith =
Director, National Center for Ontological Research
Julian Park Distinguished Professor of Philosophy
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Professor of Computer Science and Engineering
Professor of Neurology
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.

See:

* http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith
* https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=icGNWj4AAAAJ
* http://ncor.us

== Bio ==

'''Barry Smith''' is the author of some 500 scientific publications, including 25 authored or edited books. His research has been funded by the US, Swiss and Austrian National Science Foundations, the National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Defense, the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII), the Volkswagen Foundation, the German Ministry of Health, and the European Union. In 2002 he received in recognition of his scientific achievements the 2.2 Million Euro Wolfgang Paul Prize of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In 2010 he was awarded the Paolo Bozzi Prize in Ontology.

Smith's research focus is ontology and its applications, especially in biomedicine and biomedical informatics, industrial engineering, and defense and security. He is a Coordinating Editor of the OBO (Open Biomedical Ontologies) Foundry project (http://obofoundry.org). He is also editor of [http://basic-formal-ontology.org/ Basic Formal Ontology] (BFO), which is used as top-level ontology in some 300 domain ontology initiatives throughout the world.

See also:

* Professor Barry Smith's Ontolog Invited Speaker presentation entitled: "How to Do Things with Paper: The Ontology of Documents and the Technologies of Identification" at: [[ConferenceCall_2005_10_13]]
* Professor Smith's presentation at the 15-Mar-2006 [[UpperOntologySummit]]: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummitMeeting_2006_03_15#nidL78
* Professor Smith's invited talk on "Ontology Evaluation in Biomedicine: The OBO Foundry Initiative" for the [[OntologyMeasurementEvaluation]] mini-series at: [[ConferenceCall_2006_12_21]]
* Professor Smith's keynote talk on "The Industry Ontology Foundry",
Keynote 2 - Barry Smith (University at Buffalo) The Industry Ontology Foundry [https://s3.amazonaws.com/ontologforum/OntologySummit2017/Symposium/SymposiumRecording--BarrySmith_20170515.mp4 Video Recording]

[[Category:Person]]

AlexShkotin

2023-01-07T05:22:36Z

Ashkotin:

See CV on [https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ LinkedIn].

[[Category:Person]]