@inproceedings{guarino-n-1995-25-a,
title = {Ontologies and {K}nowledge {B}ases: {T}owards a {T}erminological {C}larification},
author = {Nicola Guarino and P. Giaretta},
booktitle = {Towards {V}ery {L}arge {K}nowledge {B}ases: {K}nowledge {B}uilding and {K}nowledge {S}haring},
editor = {N. J. I. Mars},
pages = {25-32},
publisher = {#IOS#},
year = {1995},
abstract = {The word "ontology" has recently gained a good popularity within the knowledge engineering community. {H}owever, its meaning tends to remain a bit vagua, as the term is used in very different ways. {L}imiting 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. {W}e elucidatethe 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". {A}fter some comments on the use "{O}ntology" (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 e�ort is the careful analysis of {G}ruber's definition of an ontology as a specification of a conceptualization.},
keywords = {av:attached ontology proj:et proj:o4p toread }
}
::