Dear Pat,

OK. So it looks like we agree after all.

Quicksort. Im quite happy to just say that Quicksort, the algorithm, is an abstraction, if you prefer that way of talking. We still need a way to refer to the 'abstract' version of an ontology, if we believe that such things exist: the thing that stands in the same relation to a number of formal ontologies that an 'abstract' algorithm stands in relation to any of its renderings as programs in a formal programming language.

[MW] It seems to me that there are (at least) 3 levels:

1. Some “physical” representation (including actions as signs here).

2. The content of a physical representation in some “language”.

3. The content of a physical representation independent of “language”.

I agree that we need a way to refer to an abstract version of an ontology. How about “theory”? The OED has amongst a number of definitions:

“A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena.”

That gives you program/algorithm and ontology/theory. It also sounds reasonable to say that an ontology represents a theory in a language.

Regards

Matthew West

Information Junction

Tel: +44 560 302 3685

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.