Debbie and Jack, (01)
I realize that precise specifications are essential
for many purposes, but ambiguity is inevitable,
especially at the early design stages. (02)
A few points: (03)
1. The goal in any kind of design (engineering,
architecture, farming, etc.) is to transform a
vague initial idea into a precise specification. (04)
2. But there is no unique way or automated way of
going from a vague stage to a precise stage.
However, semi-automated tools can help. (05)
3. The assumption that a single, universal ontology
can cover everything would imply that all of science
is finished -- no further discoveries are possible.
That won't happen for a long, long, long time. (06)
4. However, it is possible to have a fairly general,
underspecified type hierarchy. But the detailed
axioms are where conflicts arise. (07)
5. Those detailed axioms could be placed in optional
modules that could be adopted in a mix or match
approach. Something like that is already done
with program libraries, and ontologies can be
organized along similar lines. (08)
For more on these points, see the slides of the
following two talks and a recent paper: (09)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cmapping.pdf
Concept Mapping (010)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/extend.pdf
Extending Semantic Interoperability (011)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/dynonto.htm
Dynamic Ontology (012)
Bottom line: It's wishful thinking to hope that some
magic solution will eliminate vagueness and ambiguity.
But it is possible to find ways of controlling it. (013)
John (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|