|Date:||Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:58:19 EDT|
Using SUMO as a basis for a domain-specific ontology has forced me
to think about the domain-specific ontology in different ways than I would
have if I were developing it from scratch (more complex ways).
This is important as it answered a question I have had for awhile about whether the trouble of deriving a domain-specific ontology from an upper ontology was worth it. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding ... whether the final form (and the use
thereof) is better with the added complexity. That cannot be answered until
one or more ontologies are done (in different styles) and can be compared
against a use case. However, at this point, I feel the use of SUMO
is improving the domain-specific ontology I am working to create.
Now, one question/issue about a property in SUMO. SUMO has a
patient slot for a Process. The patient being some generic entity (or
entities) that is acted on by the process. I have two problems with this
1. the term patient has a specific connotation as an organic thing. I would
prefer a generic word like the "target" of the process.
2. the range of the property is "Entity" which includes both Physical and
Abstract things. Since the Process is a subclass of Physical, the targets
of the Process should probably have a range of "Object" (subclass of Physical).
I hope to have a first draft of this posted to my website sometime
tomorrow. I'll post the URL here when I upload the protege files.
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||RE: [ontolog-forum] Invoice ontology discussion points/issues, DonEMitchell|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Use of SUMO and "patient" of a Process, Adam Pease|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Invoice ontology discussion points/issues, MDaconta|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Use of SUMO and "patient" of a Process, Adam Pease|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|