View source for Ontology(IT)

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.

<span style="color:#222222;">'''bref'''</span><span style="color:#222222;"> - bibliographic reference. If not full, it keeps "???".</span>

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.

<span style="background-color:#00ff00;">'''+$+VERSION#1</span>(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<span style="color:#222222;">.</span>

<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). <span style="background-color:#d9ead3;">A conceptualization is </span>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 '''<span style="color:#222222;">intended to…</span>

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>

<span style="color:#222222;">It is a </span><span style="color:#222222;">'''formalized conceptual model'''</span><span style="color:#222222;"> </span><span style="background-color:#d9ead3;color:#222222;">intended to</span><span style="color:#222222;">:</span>* <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>

<span style="color:#222222;">I would </span><span style="background-color:#00ffff;color:#222222;">define</span><span style="color:#222222;"> it as:</span>

<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;"><span style="color:#222222;">Baader et al., </span><span style="color:#222222;">''The Description Logic Handbook''</span><span style="color:#222222;"> (2003), distinguish TBox (terminological axioms: classes, subsumption, properties) from ABox (assertions about individuals), and separate these from rule systems.</span></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>



"

"<span style="color:#222222;">So ontology status does not depend on Hermit accessibility.</span>

<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;"><span style="color:#222222;">The model-theoretic tradition originates with Tarski (1956), </span><span style="color:#222222;">''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics''</span><span style="color:#222222;">.</span></div>



<div style="color:#222222;">"</div>

<div style="color:#222222;">"Some Prolog KBs can function as ontologies.</div>

<span style="color:#222222;">But many do not.</span>

<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;"><span style="color:#222222;">Noy & McGuinness (2001), </span><span style="color:#222222;">''Ontology Development 101''</span><span style="color:#222222;">, emphasize formal class and property specification.</span></div>

* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;"><span style="color:#222222;">Smith (2003), “Ontology,” in </span><span style="color:#222222;">''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information''</span><span style="color:#222222;">, distinguishes philosophical ontology from computational ontology artifacts.</span></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>



<span style="color:#222222;">The key issue is ontological commitment, not computational accessibility.</span>* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;"><span style="color:#222222;">Gruber (1993), “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications,” </span><span style="color:#222222;">''Knowledge Acquisition''</span><span style="color:#222222;">.</span></div>
* <div style="margin-left:1.658cm;margin-right:0cm;"><span style="color:#222222;">Studer, Benjamins & Fensel (1998), “Knowledge Engineering: Principles and Methods,” </span><span style="color:#222222;">''Data & Knowledge Engineering''</span><span style="color:#222222;">.</span></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''':<span style="background-color:#d9ead3;">???</span> '''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''':<span style="background-color:#d9ead3;">???</span> '''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 vocabulary<sup>12</sup>, 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. 

<sup>12</sup> 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 <span style="background-color:#00ffff;">definition</span>, 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:"<span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#202122;">In </span>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science information science]<span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#202122;">, an </span><span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#202122;">'''ontology'''</span><span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#202122;"> 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 </span>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse domains of discourse]<span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#202122;">. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they </span><span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#202122;">are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area.</span>"

+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<span style="color:#222222;"> knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.</span>

<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>

<span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#222222;">MS AI Student at Purdue</span>

<div style="color:#222222;">256-541-1229</div>

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com djanteater@gmail.com]<span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#222222;"> </span>

'''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]<span style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#222222;"> </span>

'''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]