Some comments on the first draft
The abstract should tell us what an ontology is and why it is important and relevant. The reader should be able to say what an ontology is from reading the abstract. The abstract should be about ontologies, not about the writing of the article. The title should be more like a title; at the moment, it looks more like an abstract (in that it tries to define an ontology) than the abstract itself.
The reader should be able to come away with some idea of what an ontology is. (Or if there are multiple senses of the word used in different communities, what some of these definitions are.) It would be nice to have a clear definition of an ontology. For example, if you were writing about "pens" it would be good to have a definition (e.g., "a pen is a writing instrument that puts ink on a paper or other surface"). There might be multiple definitions, but in this case it might be better to give the multiple definitions rather than not giving any clear definitions. Think about the aim that a reader should be able to explain what an ontology is after reading your article.
It is not clear to me why truth is relevant. (You talk about truth, assuming it is relevant, but not about why it is relevant). When the IAU defined the term "planet", they could have defined it however they liked; there was no notion of a definition being true. We could then argue whether "Pluto is a planet" is true. So if ontologies are about definitions, which you hint at, then why is truth relevant.
You should try to aim this at the intended audience: other CPSC 522 students (present and future). Try to not use terms --- or at least explain them --- that they would not be familiar with. For example, unfortunately (and it is no fault of their's) you shouldn't assume students know the type-token distinction. You should be able to explain it clearly. (I wouldn't use the number 2 as you example, use something simpler like the type dog and a particular dog).
Thank you very much for the feedback. I am saying this not because you are the instructor; your comments actually helped me think about what I wrote. First of all, I certainly know that in metaphysics, ontology is used in a different sense. Disambiguation as well as some form of definition in the computer science community might be useful to give the reader some idea of what this entry is about. The latter is somewhat implicit, however, in the second section; but I can certainly try to state it more explicitly. More importantly, you are right in that truth is not somehow a property associated with the definition or meaning of a term itself. But Smith is concerned about ontology actually being true of the world. I should consider his remark more carefully. A trite example is that a bachelor is an unmarried man. So if Bob fulfills these conditions, the sentence 'Bob is a bachelor' is true. But by the same token, if a definition, be it planet or bachelor, does not capture what we are trying to speak of in the world, it is useless for us. And we would be hard-pressed to say where the notion of truth come from; the talk, done by means of those terms associated with the definitions, would not be about the world any longer. We do need that notion, truth, in formal reasoning. Maybe this is the line I should think about a little more. Needless to say, I will also address the other issues you raised.
Given that I got your feedback only a few hours ago, would it be possible to give me a few more days to incorporate further thoughts in the entry? Writing takes time (because I have to think), and I have impending deadlines for math 419 and marking (I am a TA).
Here is one thing to think about:
We could have the definition "a bachelor is an unmarried man". Call this Bachelor_formal (as it is the formal definition). Assume it is a fine definition (assuming man and unmarried are defined). We could then discuss as to how much natural usage follows this definition (and there are many ways to measure this, usually with two numbers). And when we want to be careful we would specify whether we mean Bachelor_formal or Bachelor_common_usage. In science, it turns out that it is better to be precise, so that we more and more use planet_formal rather than planet_common_usage. Then, when we specify that Pluto is a planet_formal then we can measure the properties of Pluto and come to a conclusion (and perhaps even be unsure because we can't measure all of the properties of Pluto). When we want to determine whether Pluto is a planet_common_usage, then first it changes over time, and secondly it is more a question of sociology than of the properties of Pluto.
(See the Canvas post for new deadlines)