Kathy, (01)
I strongly endorse that point: (02)
KBL> The "ontology police" want to legislate that we build and then
> conform OTEAO (Ontology to End All Ontologies), and if it isn't in
> ONTEO, you are not allowed to say it. Like all caricatures, this one
> has a basis in reality. There are some, unfortunately, who come all
> too close to fitting the caricature. But most people I talk to have
> realized by now that this is a dead end -- it is a recipe for failure
> rather than a prerequisite to success, except in very limited and
> highly constrained problems. (03)
For a particular application, such as designing a new airplane,
it is essential to have precise definitions of all the terms
used in that design. (04)
But it is impossible to have a universal ontology of airplanes
that would cover even two models by the same manufacturer,
let alone all models by all manufacturers for all time. (05)
One thing that is not only possible, but valuable, is to have
an *underspecified* classification of terms that could be
specialized as needed for each application. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|