Now with attachment ;-) (01)
Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
> Hi John:
> 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  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 , 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".
> 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.
> By the way, I really enjoyed reading your "Fads and Fallacies about
> 1. Hepp, M.: Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the
> Development of Relevant Ontologies. IEEE Internet Computing 11 (2007)
> 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
> Both are available for download at http://www.heppnetz.de/publications/
> 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:
>> 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
>> 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/
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe:
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
Description: Adobe PDF document
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)