Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>
> IEEE 1471: Every model has a viewpoint. And an ontology is a model.
> (01)
A viewpoint ignores details not relevant to it. So since every model is
an abstraction, details that may be important to other viewpoints are
deliberately left out. (02)
So a question: In ontology construction, how does one determine what to
leave out? (03)
It seems obvious at first blush that some end result for a proposed
ontology is already in mind, even if hazy. During ontology construction
choices are made. How can one be sure that all relevant information is
available to make the choices, and what becomes of what's left behind?
How are the right alternatives selected, and how does can one be sure
they match the viewpoint? This is a question of completeness. I suspect
that completeness for the viewpoint suggests that interoperability with
ontologies from other viewpoints is possible, from a content
perspective, rather than from computability. (04)
I should mention my bias (i.e., viewpoint) lies in systems engineering.
The partitioning and allocation of perceived system requirements can
lead to systems that fail to meet the needs: "You built what I asked
for, but not what I wanted." (05)
-- Jeff Schiffel (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|