Hi John: (01)
Thanks for the feedback! Two comments - first, the ontology comes from a
pretty non-commercial environment, even though us academics now do
marketing for their work as enterprises used to do ;-) Second, more
importantly, I completely agree that proper human-readable but precise
definitions of the intended meaning of an ontology element are
fundamental. In [1] I tried to summarize my criticism of looking at the
formal part of ontology specifications only, ignoring the other
modalities like text and multimedia for establishing and keeping
consensus about the intended meaning assigned to signs. In [2], I tried
to trace back the benefits from ontologies to six distinct technical
effects, of which excluding unwanted interpretations by means of formal
definition is just one. See also the attached "Lighting Talk". (02)
In a nutshell, I feel that the ontology engineering community can learn
a lot from terminology research (namely the works by Eugen Wuestner),
and maybe ISO TC 37. (03)
By the way, I really enjoyed reading your "Fads and Fallacies about Logic". (04)
Best (05)
Martin (06)
1. Hepp, M.: Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the
Development of Relevant Ontologies. IEEE Internet Computing 11 (2007) 90-96
2. Hepp, M.: Ontologies: State of the Art, Business Potential, and
Grand Challenges. In: Hepp, M., de Leenheer, P., de Moor, A., Sure, Y.
(eds.): Ontology Management: Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, and
Business Applications. Springer, Berlin etc. (2007) 3-22 (07)
Both are available for download at http://www.heppnetz.de/publications/ (08)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Martin and Duane,
>
> I agree with Duane that this "appears to be a solid mid level ontology."
> and "Licensing it as CC is also good for the community."
>
> When I first saw Martin's note, it looked like advertising, but since
> the ontology is freely available, that makes it an open resource that
> was produced by a commercial organization.
>
> I would also congratulate Martin & Co. for presenting an rdfs/owl
> ontology in a linear form that is very readable:
>
> http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1
>
> But what makes it so readable are all the English sentences marked
> "rdfs:comment". Those are clear, well-written sentences, which with
> minor modifications could be stated in a controlled English.
>
> For some examples of controlled English and its relationship to
> ordinary English and to Common Logic, see
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cl_sowa.pdf
>
> Specifying a type hierarchy in rdfs and owl is OK, but controlled
> English can also be used to specify the information in the comments
> in a form that is readable by both humans and machines. For further
> references, see Slide 28 of the cl_sowa.pdf talk.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
martin_hepp.vcf
Description: Vcard
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|