[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both needed

To: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx, Ontolog Forum <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:04:03 +0200
Message-id: <466D8083.3050507@xxxxxxxxxxx>
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Wacek,
> If I were trying to address any kind of problem in knowledge
> representation, I would much rather start with an informal
> terminology that is actually used by practitioners in the field
> than an elegant ontology designed by a logician with no experience
> in the subject matter.
>> I have heard complaints that overly philosophical ontologies
>> are too distant from practical purposes, and make the work
>> harder.
> I would agree.  The best kind, however, are those that are
> developed by practitioners who also understand logic -- but
> there are very few of those.    (01)

Unfortunately.  As CM said earlier on this forum, biologists are as good 
philosophers as philosophers are biologists.  The same certainly applies 
to biologists and logicians.    (02)

The best setup, then, is to have a team where there are biologists (or 
other domain experts), logicians, and philosophers.  One has to give 
honours to Barry in this respect -- OBO Foundry is an excellent example 
of such a team.    (03)

The semantic (or 'semantic') web, though, with the plenitude of tools 
for the development of ontologies (or 'ontologies') allows for the 
creation and publication of nonsense with just a few clicks, almost.    (04)

vQ    (05)

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    (06)

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