Pat, (01)
There is no difference in principle between compiling a
procedural representation (such as C) or a declarative
representation (such as OWL or predicate calculus) to some
internal form that is extremely difficult to reverse engineer. (02)
> How? You are saying that an ontology can be usable as an ontology
> but cannot be reverse engineered to be humanly readable? (03)
For example, one could translate an OWL ontology to Prolog code,
which is humanly readable. But then it is possible to compile
that Prolog code to a C program and from C to machine code. A
reverse compiler from machine code might be able to generate
a C program without comments, but it would be extremely difficult
to reverse engineer the original Prolog or OWL from that C code. (04)
JFS>> If those internal forms are kept proprietary, the effect
>> would be to keep the ontology as "closed" as any program. (05)
PH> Except that the source is freely available in the OOR, right? (06)
Yes. That's why it's called "open". Many businesses want to
provide services to their customers, but they do not want their
competitors to copy the ontologies that drive those services.
For that reason, they are not likely to deposit their operational
ontologies in the OOR. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|