Pat Hayes wrote: (01)
> No. Well, yes: there isn't one (a minimal criterion). So lets stop
> talking about it. Its not a complicated question, its a meaningless
> question. Anything written in OWL counts as an ontology. Some ontologies
> might not be much use, but they are ontologies. I don't want OWL tools
> telling me that my OWL isn't beautiful enough to count as an ontology,
> so they refuse to process it. (02)
No argument there. But some of the would-be "ontology repository" folk
have very definite opinions about "gatekeeping" on the basis of
"quality". Now that we have created a buzzword in funding circles, it
would be nice if the ontology community could agree on some nicer
classifications before they are thrust on us by funded gatekeepers with
their own rules. (03)
OTOH, I might be tempted to adopt the Groucho Marx view: I wouldn't want
to be a member of a club that would have a person like me for a member! (04)
-Ed (05)
P.S. Like Cataline, I hold the view that most of the Optimates do not
have the competence to be the arbiters they make themselves. The Greek
philosophers had a word for that -- hubris. (06)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (07)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (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)
|