[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Neil Custer" <neil.custer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:34:52 -0600
Message-id: <7a5bda850901081134h99607c8gec63dd8c8c92aead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Ed, some comments on your thoughts:
I think this is an interesting "engineering experiment", as long as it
comes with some success metric.  That is: If you know what benefit you
want, define an objective criterion that determines whether you have
achieved some part of that benefit.  Now, do indeed choose and use an
ontology engineering methodology, and see if and when it results in
satisfying that criterion.  And be prepared for the methodology to fail,
or to need significant additions or modifications to succeed.  Then
please report on it.

The trick with something like this is to (have the leisure to) take a
scientific view of the activity as an experiment.  The experimental
result may support or contradict the benefit hypothesis, and EITHER
result is equally important.

I agree there must be an objective criterion on which to determine if the benefit was achieved.  As you also stated later, the original question in the thread :

What should be the relationship between ontologies and the many existing and emerging standard information models and dictionaries that support standards of practice?

Therefore, this criterion would determine how strong or weak a relationship is.  That is the reason for:
> 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).

I don't understand this.

I have limited understanding with some of your concepts, so my terminology may fail in adequately expressing the idea.  I believe there are several different ways to construct an ontology based on the purpose one wishes to derive from it.  I believe these are called Ontology Design Patterns.

I think my ideas are basically those being carried out by the NeOn (Networked Ontology) approach that I have just located this morning.  Here an excellent description of their approach:


I was not aware of this project prior to looking for some references for ODPs this morning.  It appears to me their approach will (or does already) provide the "ontology types based on purpose" to which I was referring.

In addition, I was not saying that the relationships between the ontologies and the standards should be just like the relationships between tables in a database (or the columns and tuples they contain), I was saying that when developing ontology node relationships should become this simple, then I believe the utility of ontology providing benefits to semantic applications will take off.

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>