Two comments in response to Peter Brown's reply:
> -1, except for the word "comprehensibility" (as long as you
> include non
> philosophers, ontologists, etc in that target audience).
> Engineering-led projects without architects may perform great on
> own, but they often suck when it comes to being understood by anyone
> other than the original designers or fitting in with anything else.
> ontology development without any desire for, or perspective towards,
> interoperability - with anyone beyond their own territory -
> is likely to
> be abstract, academic, hot-air: you may as well just hand everything
> back to the programmers of old and let them grok everything using
> variables in their preferred programming language...
Interoperability creates its own additional imperatives, yes. I am
convinced that **accurate** interoperability (getting the same
inferences from the same data) requires use of a common foundation
ontology - and the 'foundation ontology' is only the set of ontology
elements (types, relations, axioms) required to permit the needed
specification of the meanings of the domain elements that people will
wish to formalize, in FOL at a minimum. I call that the 'Conceptual
Defining Vocabulary". I don't know what size foundation ontology will
be necessary and sufficient, but suspect that it will be in the
5000-10000 concept range. I'm trying some experiments to discover what
that will be. I think that such a foundation ontology is unlikely to
be adopted widely until someone with a compelling application makes
their foundation ontology available, in a form that's easier to learn
than Cyc or the Java programming language. Or alternatively, some
funding agency actually funds the development of such an ontology by a
large collaborative effort, with interfaces and applications ($10-20
million over 2-3 years I expect). I suspect that many of us may be
sufficiently exhausted by the debates to be ready for that. (02)
> I'm not convinced there is yet even a partial reply to my
> original post
> starting this thread:
> " My frustration with many of the threads on this list (and the
> list - although I admit that I'm no longer sure what goes where...)
> that there seems to be a lot of discussion over detail - of
> how to model
> this, or how to present that - and not enough to the bigger pictures:
> who should be involved in ontology development? What
> qualifies them and
> how can you judge? How do you start to develop an ontology?
> Should you?
> How do you introduce quality control? Who decides? Where's the
> when you need one?"
> Any answers on *these* questions? ;-)
[PC] Does anyone think we need a "Institute of Ontological Engineering"
that awards licenses after a qualifying exam?? Should we conjure up
such an exam? Perhaps we can have grades: apprentice, journeyman,
More immediately, would it be possible to have a reviewed journal of
ontological engineering that is freely available on the internet? . .
. So we can accelerate the process of coalescing as a scientific
discipline? I can't afford the existing print journals. (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat
> Sent: 19 March 2007 21:04
> To: Cassidy, Patrick J.
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and methodology
> >My advice is to boldly go and do what makes sense in your domain.... (07)
> >It is unlikely you will run into
> >logical contradictions, and in engineering the information
> >infrastructure, aesthetics should take a second place to
> >comprehensibility and efficiency.
> +1. Should be written in pokerwork and hung over the entry door of
> every Ontology Engineering Laboratory :-)
> Pat Hayes
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
260 Industrial Way West
Eatontown NJ 07724
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)