This is a text version of my comment during today's conference call... (01)
I would like to provide guidelines to standards developers that are not
familiar with ontology development or formalized taxonomies. For
example, a wide variety of standards have referenced RFC2119 for the use
of terms such as MUST. (02)
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt> (03)
I know this is in the realm of mereology and mereotopology, but if I
dare mention those words to specialist in air conditioning, their eyes
will glaze over. (04)
Perhaps a web form where someone enters two nouns, 'snarf' and 'blat'.
Then the system asks a series of questions like "If snarf is a part of
blat, and you take away the snarf, would the blat be a blat anymore?"
The answer drives them to use a specific label (maybe even a URI) for
that relationship. It could even provide feedback on why other similar
labels are not appropriate. (05)
Agreeing to standardize on the RFC definition of terms like MUST is a
relatively small (but necessary) step for a standards committee. Coming
to a consensus on the specific label to put on a relationship could be
quite a task. Programmer/analysts that work with customers on getting
their sign-off on a UML diagram for their system see this all the time. (06)
Joel (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|