Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Ron,
>
> Just one point.
>
>
>> I just want to have a ghost of a chance of being able build up a
>> compatible set of ontologies (basic science, units of measure, physics,
>> chemistry, process equipment, instrumentation, health and safety,
>> regulatory, etc.) from many sources. I want to use them without having
>> to rename everything.
>>
>
> [MW] What I am hoping for, is that for these basic things, the people
> responsible for their definition (the authoritative source) will provide
> suitable URIs. So for example, that the International Committee for Weights
> and Measures (Comité international des poids et measures) will provide the
> ones for units of measure. I think that an authoritative source can be
> identified for most of the things you mention above. The problem I see is in
> persuading them to rise to the challenge of providing the web identities and
> definitions. Perhaps we could help?
>
> What I fear is that everyone will define their own identities and
> definitions for e.g. units of measure.
>
>
I am a little less concerned about this since I think that the
marketplace will chose the "best" ontologies rather naturally.
Forums like this will have a great role to play in the process of
natural selection. (01)
Ontologies that include or are dedicated to units of measure will
support existing standards and will gradually coalesce to a common base
that application designers will find most useful and most easily
integrated with other ontologies. Probably there will be informal
agreements to build compatible sets that can make up a seemless
application ontology(such as Apache Software Foundation's work on the
Java stack ).
It will be a PITA in the first few years to guess who the ultimate
winners are but that is just part of the whole technology selection
process that we have to do today when starting a project.
I can not just pick the Apache stack since I want a more established
database system. I expect to face the same challenges in selecting a set
of foundation ontologies. (02)
The usefulness to others of any ontology that I develop will depend on
the choice that I made for a "units of measure" ontology.
People who really like my ontology but hate my choice for "unit of
measure" may redo my ontology with a better foundation set and release
that to the marketplace so that I may have to revisit my own choices
later. That is the price you pay for getting it wrong. (03)
The marketplace may be cruel but it does eventually pick a set of winners.
Big players such as IBM, US government, DOD and Microsoft have the power
to distort the process but that is just a fact of life. (04)
It will be interesting to see what the major Indian and Chinese players
will come up with as ontologies. (05)
Ron
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (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)
|