> EB>> I, for one, would prefer to see the next 5+ years spent on
> >> in vivo testing of knowledge engineering concepts, and on
> >> the development of a discipline. Think of it as the medical
> >> experience that will give us some knowledge of the required
> >> properties of your panacea.
>
> [MW] I agree. It would be a good idea to know what we are doing
> before doing it on a large scale.
>
> [JFS] I strongly agree. That was the point of my note on methodology,
> which emphasizes the distinctions as more fundamental than the
> particular choice of categories. (01)
Now that we are all in violent agreement, I would point out that Amanda
said it first: (02)
> The best way to develop an upper ontology may be to let it emerge. Pursue
> applied ontology projects as described above, and bring in the upper (and
> upper-middle) as they are needed. Bring in higher level concepts as you need
> them to connect concepts accross domains, to model the logical behavior and
> other characteristics of the domain-specific concepts, to avoid redundant
> and oddly-placed assertions on domain concepts that can accurately be placed
> on shared concepts shared across the domains. (03)
-Ed (04)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (05)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (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)
|