John, (01)
Yes, all of these terms will need to be defined in the right context.
However, it is not here and now in our simple email exchange. (02)
We can grind everything down all the time, so that nothing gets
accomplished, especially here in email. I choose other venues, given
very limited time. (03)
Thanks,
Leo (04)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>John F. Sowa
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:57 PM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza
>(was ckae)
>
>Leo,
>
>Those are good principles to follow:
>
> > Many of us try to strictly adhere to a methodology when
> > developing domain ontologies that focuses on the purpose
> > of the ontology, i.e., the set of use cases, scenarios,
> > competency questions for which it is being built. I.e.,
> > stuff that drives out the requirements...
>
>But the following sentence raises some very important issues
>that have never been settled (or even adequately discussed,
>despite the many years of SUO list):
>
> > This methodology does apply to upper/middle ontologies, but
> > of course there are other issues that come into play. E.g.,
> > more complex integration/interoperability, etc.
>
>Every one of the following terms (extracted from that sentence)
>is highly controversial and poorly defined:
>
> methodology, upper ontology, middle ontology, integration,
> complex integration, interoperability.
>
>Furthermore, the relationships among those terms and their
>implications for one another are even more controversial
>and less well defined.
>
> > In a more disciplined world, the competency questions would
> > be associated with the given ontology, to facilitate reuse.
>
>That sentence introduces additional controversial and poorly
>defined terms whose relationships to the above and to one
>another are just as problematical:
>
> disciplined world, competency, reuse.
>
> > I am working currently on a chapter on ontology architecture
> > that addresses some of these issues.
>
>Good luck. If I may add a suggestion, I would recommend that the
>architecture be highly flexible and extensible -- because it is
>almost certain that it will have to undergo lots of revisions.
>
>John
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
> (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)
|