[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:46:11 -0800
Message-id: <20090211204653.9970C138CFB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Don,    (01)

>Until the FO comes with the complete set of supporting ontologies,
>technologies and capabilities that may immediately be applied
>effectively to the domains the company works in, with significant cost
>savings, interest in adopting such technology will be minimal. Funding,
>less so.
>Don Conklin
>Lockheed Martin, ISGS-Defense
>Virginia Beach, VA
>1+757-675-5947    (02)

I agree that tools are needed to mount the ontology into a project.  But
specific supporting ontologies, if needed, are developed in every data model
for every project anyway.  In the beginning of this FO, there won't be
any public secondary ontologies to speak of (except Dublin core and the
like).  There must be small projects which can be served by reformulating
a database to fit the FO, and otherwise stopping the reformulation.      (03)

Databases have classes built into the processes, but essentially no
databases have followed any fundamental ontology.  So what works well for 
commercial purposes may be totally useless to OE researchers.      (04)

-Rich    (05)

Rich Cooper
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com    (06)

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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>