[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] what is open ontology?

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Wacek Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:14:55 +0200
Message-id: <481249CF.7020605@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Pat Hayes wrote:
>> There is also the issue of what is to be understood as 'source'.  An
>> ontology in, e.g., OWL can be considered as the result of a compilation
> >from sources such as experimental evidence or prior expert knowledge.
> Only in a very stretched analogy with the 
> technical sense of 'compile' in CS. In your 
> sense, 
i do not really propose this sense, just trying to see things from 
different perspectives.    (01)

> the source code of a program might be said 
> to be 'compiled' from the programmer's 
> understanding of the subject-matter or domain in 
> which the program is intended to operate. But 
> that isn't the sense of 'compile' which 
> distinguishes source code from executable binary, 
> and which makes the 'open source' notion 
> intelligible.
>       (02)

sure, agree.    (03)

> It seems pretty clear to me that OWL is 
> analogous, if at all, to the source code language 
> of a program. It is a technical notation with a 
> precise semantics which is typically written by 
> human specialists who require training to use it 
> well. One can learn to use it. 
not that it matters for the discussion:  machine code can also be used 
directly, by trained human specialists.  this makes machine code a 
source, and executable software open source, right?  i mean, the 
interpretation of 'open source' depends on the interpretation of 
'source', which is relative.    (04)

anyway, the original issue was of using the term 'open' rather than 
'open source', the latter appearing only in my comment.  i do not think 
that the mere readability, or maybe readness (in case 'readability' is 
take to mean that a file might be read as opposed to that someone can 
actually read it) of an ontology once it has been downloaded implies 
that the term 'open' is useless wrt. ontologies.  you may have been 
convincing in explaining why it does not make sense to call an ontology 
'open source', but your original objection still seems a little ungrounded.    (05)

vQ    (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)

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