Talk:Gellish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

I don't understand what this article has to do with philosophy and/or history of ideas.

further:

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

--Ptroxler 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The relation with philosophy is that it is an ontology not just in the information science sense but also in the philosophical sense. This is apparent from the extensive discussion on ontologies in the book: Gellish, a generic extensible ontological language. Reference added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndriesVanRenssen (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gellish compared with OWL

The comparison of OWL and Gellish may be misleading to some. OWL is a tool for creating ontologies, and is not an ontology itself. I think that calling it an ontology is stretching the concept quite a bit. It's comparable to calling SQL an empty database.

Also, OWL doesnt have a "fixed set of concepts (terms)", it has a fixed set of constructors. The words "concept" and "term" must be replaced or explained. As it now stands, it looks like OWL doesn't include the class CAR, and neither can it be included until a new version of OWL is released. Seymore Fry 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment.
I have improved the text, hopefully to your satisfaction. The text now states that OWL 'can be regarded as an UPPER ontology'. This means that it only defines very generic concepts (which can also be called constructors). I explained the terms concept and term in the text. The class CAR is not one of the OWL constructors (and probably never will be), but CAR can be defined using OWL as a meta-language. AndriesVanRenssen (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)