Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Towards a Terminological Clarification
Nicola Guarino, Stati Uniti, Pierdaniele Giaretta
Abstract
Nicola Guarino, Stati Uniti, Pierdaniele Giaretta
Abstract
The word “ontology ” has recently gained a good popularity within the knowledge engineering community. However, its meaning tends to remain a bit vague, as the term is used in very different ways. Limiting our attention to the various proposals made in the current debate in AI, we isolate a number of interpretations, which in our opinion deserve a suitable clarification. We elucidate the implications of such various interpretations, arguing for the need of clear terminological choices regarding the technical use of terms like “ontology”, “conceptualization ” and “ontological commitment”. After some comments on the use “Ontology ” (with the capital “o”) as a term which denotes a philosophical discipline, we analyse the possible confusion between an ontology intended as a particular conceptual framework at the knowledge level and an ontology intended as a concrete artifact at the symbol level, to be used for a given purpose. A crucial point in this clarification effort is the careful analysis of Gruber’ s definition of an ontology as a specification of a conceptualization. 1
OpenAlex reports 828 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The word “ontology ” has recently gained a good popularity within the knowledge engineering community. However, its meaning tends to remain a bit vague, as the term is used in very different ways. Limiting our attention to the various proposals made in the current debate in AI, we isolate a number of interpretations, which in our opinion deserve a suitable clarification. We elucidate the implications of such various interpretations, arguing for the need of clear terminological choices regarding the technical use of terms like “ontology”, “conceptualization ” and “ontological commitment”. After some comments on the use “Ontology ” (with the capital “o”) as a term which denotes a philosophical discipline, we analyse the possible confusion between an ontology intended as a particular conceptual framework at the knowledge level and an ontology intended as a concrete artifact at the symbol level, to be used for a given purpose. A crucial point in this clarification effort is the careful analysis of Gruber’ s definition of an ontology as a specification of a conceptualization. 1
Key concepts: Conceptualization, Ontology, Epistemology, Upper ontology, Computer science, Meaning (existential), Term (time), Popularity