|
"I think my ideas are basically those being carried out by the NeOn
(Networked Ontology) approach that I have just located this morning."
This sort of ontology gives another reason why a standard ontology project
should be actively initiated.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:34
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps
in using ontologies as standards
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:
http://www.neon-project.org/web-content/index.php?view=weblink&catid=17%3Aproject-reports&id=28%3Ad111-networked-ontology-model&option=com_weblinks&Itemid=73
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
|