Azamat, (01)
I join Chris Menzel in challenging your "passing judgment" on the NeOn
project and their participants' knowledge. If you have been following
the activities of this forum, you would have seen some of the finest
work in our domain field, showcased by folks from the NeOn project.
Just look through -
http://www.google.com/custom?q=NeOn&sa=Search&cof=T%3A%23000000%3BLW%3A149%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cim3.com%2Fimages%2Fsm_logo.gif%3BLH%3A60%3BBGC%3A%23FFFFFF%3BAH%3Aleft%3BGL%3A0%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cim3.com%3BAWFID%3A5a72135506f3d552%3B&domains=cim3.net%3Bontolog.cim3.net&sitesearch=ontolog.cim3.net
and you will see great work like OMV, ODP, the NeOn Toolkit, Oyster,
Watson, Cupboard ... etc. coming out of that project. (02)
Let's be scientific about this on our community workspace, and keep
unfounded assessments out. (03)
Regards. =ppy (04)
Peter Yim
Co-convener, ONTOLOG
-- (05)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantics of the mKR language
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (06)
On Apr 1, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Azamat wrote:
ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2009-04/msg00003.html#nid08 (07)
> [Azamat] ... Also, his research is not any load to the public,
> unlike those eating the public funds without knowing what they are
> to deliver. Here is a 'rationale' i met on the research page of
> one such projectcosting Euro 14 m:
>
> "Most of the existing practices for the development of ontologies
> focus on a single ontology, on a global consistency of such an
> ontology, and, in principle, on a linear development. This is very
> restrictive -- it is as if we all communicated in a single language
> and completely disregarded our cultural or historical specifics.
> Single ontology means single viewpoint on the problems, situations
> and solutions. If in our everyday life we use many different
> viewpoints, why can't designers of semantic applications and
> engineers developing knowledge models do the same? In NeOn, we see
> several dimensions, in which the existing single-ontology style of
> work needs to be enriched."
>
> Which objective the whole project is aimed for: arguing for the
> single ontology or agaist it? That's a real puzzle, not Chinese
> puzzle. (08)
[Menzel] The puzzle is why you don't grasp the fact that the
writer is obviously arguing against the idea of a single ontology. (09)
> [Azamat] I wish to be mistaken, but it sounds as the folks don't
> know that they don't know what they are talking about and doing. I
> am afraid that many of these people are among (ontology) reviewers,
> passing judgments on other projects. That's a real harm. (010)
[Menzel] Another real harm is to slander a legitimate research project
(about which you apparently know very little) in a public forum with a
single piece of cherry-picked "evidence" to "demonstrate" your thesis.
That is a tactic for rightwing talk radio, not a research forum. The
project in question, NeOn, is a large one involving dozens of people,
many of them fine researchers. If you want a truly fair and balanced
account, read the annual reports and the publications the project has
made available. (011)
Chris Menzel (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|
