Jump to content

Talk:Gellish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

further:

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

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)[reply]

I agree with Ptroxler The two articles Gellish and Gellish english should be merged and there is no reason that Gellish deserves to be in philosophy. Or rather if Gellish does deserve to be in philosophy than things like Dublin Core and FOFA deserve to be as well. They are all essentially just examples of ontologies and to the extent they are also "an ontology in the phiosophical sense" (not sure what that means) then either they all are or none of them are. IMO philosophy is more for meta issues, not a label for any specific ontology but questions about how ontologies relate to human language and thoughts (a very interesting question IMO and one I have lots of opinions on but a separate issue from developing any specific domain ontology). --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gellish compared with OWL

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Difference between Gellish and Gellish English

[edit]

Gellish is natural language independent and uses unique identifiers (UID's) to represent concepts. Gellish English uses natural English terms and phrases to denote those same concepts and uses the UID's to refer the the language independent concepts. The two articles are important for non-native English speakers to understand that they don't need to use English and nevertheless can use formal Gellish in their own language and develop their own natural language specific (domain) dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndriesVanRenssen (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we come up with a multilingual ontology (tool) that uses, for example, Gellish English and translates the concepts to Gellish Chinese then? --media_lib (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

[edit]

I absolutely agree with the Merge proposal to merge Gellish and Gellish english. They are the same concept, I see no reason to have two articles. In fact I've seldom seen a more obvious case of two articles on the same topic (why does this happen so often? we need a better process to QA new articles and check them against existing ones, sorry rant over). --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gellish is clearly not the same as Gellish English but I think we could merge Gellish English as a subsection of Gellish. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I moved the following links from the External links section because they are inappropriate as ELs but may serve as good sources to support article content.

Jojalozzo (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gellish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gellish&oldid=1202238990"