At 2003-08-07 09:48 -0700, Adam Pease wrote:
>More people are familiar with XML. It has a larger user base and
>tool set, so why not just create XML rather than worry about ontologies? (01)
While I find this argument to be dismissive, it may point to the core
issues underlying the current debate. (02)
The question is not whether or not to create a XML
representation. That decision has been made (by another, larger
group). The vast majority of the work has been done. And the XML
version will almost certainly be ready before the fully-formalized
ontological version. Why, because more people are familiar with XML;
it has a larger user base and tool set; and -- perhaps more
fundamentally -- it is an appropriate fit for the targeted
utilization scenarios. (03)
From my perspective, it seems clear that the "UBL ontology" will
take a variety of forms. Each representation will have relative
strengths and weaknesses. In sort, logical expressiveness is only
one measure of value. Clearly, the XML representation of UBL is
well-optimized for some uses, but weak -- or even inadequate -- for
others. That was the basis for our decision to create a formalized
ontology based on the UBL concepts. What other representations
should be produced? I don't know. (04)
While I can follow this discussion at a general level, I don't have a
sufficient grasp of the subtleties to have strong opinions regarding
ontological tools and languages. In fact, about the only bias that I
have is one of creeping incrementalism: Start your semantic
formalization simply, and add complexity and richness as your
requirements, understanding, and resources warrant it. (05)
From my vantage point, I'm seeing indications that a KIF
representation might not be the best fit for all usage and
interaction scenarios. This observation does not imply that a KIF
representation should not be produced, or even how and when. Rather,
it suggests that to meet a broad set of user requirements (perhaps,
even, including the needs of the Ontolog modeling community) work on
KIF needs to be balanced with work on other technology platforms. (06)
I guess this leads me to a corollary question: Does the decision to
produce an ontology in KIF effectively preclude working with any
other languages and/or platforms? If so, are the tradeoffs acceptable? (07)
Or, looking at it from the requirements side: What representations
are needed? Is KIF adequate to handle all of the expected
utilization scenarios? (08)
/s/ kwc 2003.08.07 10:17 (09)
___________________________________________________________________
Kurt Conrad
2994 Salem Dr. 408-247-0454
Santa Clara, CA 95051-5502 408-247-0457 (data/fax)
http://www.SagebrushGroup.com mailto:conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|