Ontology in computer science
From what I understand, the following two current definitions of ontology in computer science are meant to specify the same concept:
- (computer science, information science) A structure of concepts or entities within a domain, organized by relationships; a system model.
- (computer science, information science) A specification of a conceptualization. Proposed by Tom Gruber (1992).
Neither definition is very informative, to me anyway. If you want to know what an ontology is, consider having a look at one, at SUMO:
--Dan Polansky 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
The defn that reads "A specification of a conceptualization. Proposed by Tom Gruber (1992)." Is this distinct from the sense that precedes it? And who is Tom Gruber (he's not in wikipedia)? -- WikiPedant 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tom Gruber definition of ontology (see http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html) is one of the most frequently used in computer sciences. It is much more general than the sense that precedes it, since it makes no assumption how this conceptualisation will be done (via relationship in the previous definition). —This comment was unsigned.
- I don't see how "a specification of a conceptualization" is any different from "a system model". --EncycloPetey 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not satisfied that the "proposal" of one professor (even a Stanford professor) on his web site is enough to merit inclusion in a dictionary. I think this defn fails to meet the criteria for attestation at WT:CFI. But, even if the defn were OK, at the minimum it would need to be merged with the preceding defn. -- WikiPedant 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion died long ago, and I see no good reason, here or elsewhere, to retain the rfv'd sense. So I have removed it. -- WikiPedant 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)