Data modelling is about, er, modelling data; it would follow that
ontology building is about building an ontology (small "o"). Data is not
the same as ontology; building is not the same as modelling. Sloppy
terminology and formulation for such a precise question, and on this
list of all places...! ;-) (01)
Further, I don't understand why ontology building is an exercise in
application-specific modelling: I can build an ontology without giving a
damn about how it's used, where or by who - it's my encapsulated take on
reality and I can then *use* it to build something, if I choose: If you
switch your phrase around and talk rather about "ontology modelling" and
"application-specific building", it becomes clearer (to me at least). (02)
Not so many moons ago, we had an extensive and intensive discussion
around the differences between data modelling and information modelling
- and now we have ontology modelling and, why not, concept modelling.
Would someone venture to distinguish, group, eliminate and add, as
appropriate? (03)
Bill stated that:
"Surely it cannot be the use of this or that formalism which delivers
the desired interoperability properties." (04)
At the Ontology Summit we talked about the "expressivity" of different
formalisms - presumably there is a significant difference in what
"desired interoperability properties" are delivered, as a function of
the expressiveness of the formalism you use, no? (05)
Peter (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Waclaw
Kusnierczyk
Sent: 18 June 2007 16:47
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but
both needed (07)
Bill Andersen wrote: (08)
> I'll pose this question to the list as I've posed it before to many
> others, most of whom have failed to give a satisfactory reply - if
> ontology-building is an exercise in application-specific modeling
> among a constrained group of users, then why is it not just a variant (09)
> on what we already do with UML which goes under the more pedestrian
> name of data modeling? Surely it cannot be the use of this or that
> formalism which delivers the desired interoperability properties. (010)
Bill, (011)
Would you provide us with your favourite satisfactory reply to this
question? (012)
vQ (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (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)
|