[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Disaster Management ontology BOF in Delft

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Barker, Sean (UK)" <Sean.Barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:02:04 +0100
Message-id: <E18F7C3C090D5D40A854F1D080A84CA40B3F9B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Strictly, I could create an ontology as an index to all potential combinations of the factors, however the only useful thing that could be done with it is to break it down into the factors, so that the users could generate their own event code, either manually, or automatically.
    One of the reasons for doing it this way is that a simple structure of factors are relatively straightforward to translate into the different languages of the recipients (we assume a multi-lingual, multi-alphabetic target audience).

Sean Barker
Bristol, UK

This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process of public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not represent an official company view.


From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Andersen
Sent: 07 June 2007 15:15
To: [ontolog-forum] [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Disaster Management ontology BOF in Delft

*** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Hi Sean,

A couple of comments to your note.

On Jun 7, 2007, at 04:25 , Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:

That is, I don't think that "event" can be represented by a single ontology, and that it should be represented by a set of factor ontologies (for scale, cause and actor) for which there is some measure of agreement.

If you have some entity or entities E that can't be represented by a single ontology and which you will represent using "factor" ontologies, then  one of these must be the case:

1) The factor ontologies are inconsistent when combined, in which case there's not much point in talking about E in the first place except in the sense the representation so made could be read by humans (for which we already have great natural languages).

2) The factor ontologies are not inconsistent when combine, in which case could you clear up what you meant by "I don't think that "event" can be represented by a single ontology", since clearly in this case they can be so used.



Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

Chief Scientist

Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)

3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600

Baltimore, MD 21224

Office: 410-675-1201

Cell: 443-858-6444

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>