|From:||"Neil Custer" <neil.custer@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:25:58 -0600|
Dr. Tolk, As an aside, I am typically very optimistic about the advance of technology in general. I've worked for the federal government (military) for 28+ years in IT. In my opinion if you are waiting for "... strong leadership by managing organizations .... in particular government organizations when it comes to
spending tax dollars to the maximal benefits of the people, and not
just one project.", then you are a bigger optimist than anyone on the forum. I agree that lack of leadership and knowledge by PMs and IT leadership in the government has been questionable at best for a long, long time. Perhaps someone here thinks Obama's new government CTO will be our messiah... but I doubt it ;-)|
To the rest of the forum: I have been standing on the sidelines in the forum long enough to see that it appears even the most respected of ontology experts such as yourselves can't agree what the right direction might be to find the holy grail of knowledge capture and reuse. My humble opinions rarely get even a grumble (perhaps because I'm not a Philosophy PhD that has built ontologies for years, but don't fault me for that--I can still follow your discussions) but I think intelligent people with original ideas can spark a solution if those with the implementation intelligence will listen. Having said that, I agree with Mr. Wheeler's supposition that there has been little in the "killer app" department to show the true benefits of a foundation ontology, and when even those in a field as advanced as the life sciences community has trouble agreeing on ontological formats, primatives, and what have you, then perhaps the approach needs to be rethought.
Two ideas I'll float to see if they make any sense whatsoever:
- With so many viewpoints of an ontology's construction and purpose: Pick one benefit and push the construction methodology to the limit to further that particular benefit--perhaps some other natural benefits may fall out as side effects.
- Determine a way to express the ontology construction aspect as an ontological type based on its purpose/benefit. Then determine methods for these to interact (or more particularly, describe the relationships between them). It seems illogical to me to try to capture all knowledge in a single ontology, just as it is ridiculous to capture all facts about a domain in a single flat-file "database". My thinking is that when a single ontological discourse can be captured in something as basic as a table in a database and can be related to other tables in a knowledge domain as easily as building primary keys between tables in a database, then the ability to use the information contained in a set of domain ontologies will take off at an unbelievable pace.
I've been exposed to teams that have been building enormous XML schemas with the intent of modeling all possible uses for all of the data they may want to exchange in an enterprise and the end result is so floppy that it is basically meaningless in terms of the possible descriptive capabilities of XML. I perceive a similar situation has risen in this forum for trying to find an ontology approach that meets all knowledge engineer's needs and is hitting up against this same conundrum.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tolk, Andreas <atolk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
PRIMITIVES OF MEANING
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Francis McCabe|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Francis McCabe|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Tolk, Andreas|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Patrick Cassidy|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|