All, (01)
I would expect a glossary to contain more information than a simple dictionary.
In the case of an 'applied ontology', I would expect an author to discuss (a)
areas in which ontologies have been successfully or unsuccessfully applied, (b)
at least reference the basic components of an applied ontology (versus a
theoretical or logical model), (3) how the applications leveraged or discarded
components from the theoretical models of ontologies, and (4) to at least
highlight some of the lessons learned or best practices in developing such an
application. (02)
I think this glossary could be incredibly valuable not only for those reading it
but for those contributing to it (similar to knowledge elicitation). When
we've developed our best practices/guiding principles for some of our applied
ontologies, it has taken months to actually document all of the steps, ideas,
etc. (03)
If what you are aiming at is a simple dictionary approach, I agree that this
will not be very helpful. A glossary approach, though, is a bit different and
has significant potential value for this community. (04)
Best regards,
Denise (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)
|