|Date:||Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:31:57 EST|
In a message dated 10/29/2002 4:57:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx writes:|
You are creating an IC ontology. What is IC?
Sorry about the acronym without explanation. IC stands for
Can you give an example of some descriptions from your ontology that “that unambigously
describe[s] the subjects of resources in the knowledge base“.
The ontology will have concepts from each of the Intelligence domains.
Some examples are Facility, Person, WeaponSystem, etc.
Data sources will be explicitly mapped to these classes via a registration
Most of the time, there is no such thing as an unambiguous description, exceptions arise for mathematical creations. The idea of an ontology is to reduce ambiguity as much as is necessary for a given application. NB, I did not say as much as POSSIBLE. That will often be a waste of time.
The whole concept of URIs replacing words is to allow unambiguous description.
For example, given a Department of Defense URI for a Tank like
www.vkb.org/Army/Equipment/#Tank I can unambigously state that I am
referring to a weapon system and not a water storage device.
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||RE: [ontolog] Welcome to new members, Uschold, Michael F|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog] Welcome to new members, Adam Pease|
|Previous by Thread:||RE: [ontolog] Welcome to new members, Uschold, Michael F|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog] Welcome to new members, Adam Pease|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|