To: | ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
---|---|
From: | MDaconta@xxxxxxx |
Date: | Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:20:34 EST |
Message-id: | <3d.2d9f0dff.2bb1dbd2@xxxxxxx> |
In a message dated 3/6/2003 3:49:20 PM US Mountain Standard Time, lobrst@xxxxxxxxx writes:By the way, both of these papers are on Chris Welty's home page: Hi Everyone, In looking at these papers, I don't see these methodologies as being in competition. I see it as an issue of granularity. The welty and guaranino papers discuss finer points of ontology construction (identity, rigidity, dependence) which can easily be included in Step 4.1 which is "ensuring that the class hierarchy is correct". In other words, the process is a multi-pass process. Thus, I would recommend that the overaching framework be the Ontology 101 process with a "Welty and Guarino" pass in step 4. Thoughts? - Mike ------------------------------- Michael C. Daconta Chief Scientist, Advanced Programs Group McDonald Bradley, Inc. www.daconta.net |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Regular Weekly Conference Calls - Thu 3.27.2003 10:30am PST, Peter P. Yim |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology building methodology, Peter P. Yim |
Previous by Thread: | [ontolog-forum] Re: Ontology: Active vs. Observer, Peter P. Yim |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology building methodology, Peter P. Yim |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |