[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology building methodology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:06:34 -0500
Message-id: <3E80B6CA.A7B8D8FA@xxxxxxxxx>
Yes, but Methontology (the other half of the merged Meth/OntoClean) addresses at the same level (except richer) as the McGuinness & Noy. I will place some references when I get a chance.

OntoClean is more for experienced ontologists at this point.


MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote:

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

Thus, I would recommend that the overaching framework be the
Ontology 101 process with a "Welty and Guarino" pass in step 4.


- Mike
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, Advanced Programs Group
McDonald Bradley, Inc.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>