ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:47:24 -0400
Message-id: <01d601c9bd42$3772ee60$a658cb20$@com>
Additional comment at the bottom:    (01)

Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx    (02)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 3:30 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"
> 
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> >> ...
> >> RHM: > We will advance the state of the art more quickly by
> >> building useful single ontologies for particular applications,
> >> instead of searching for an upper ontology which is suitable for
> >> all applications.
> >>
> >> [PC]  That would definitely be helpful.  But since there are no
> >> such practical applications yet accessible to the general public,
> >> my suggestion for a Foundation Ontology project includes the
> >> development of some practical applications, among which I would
> >> recommend a basic natural Language capability (5-6 year old English
> >> speaker) and integration of several databases as examples.  These
> >> efforts would in my expectation be synergistic and would benefit
> >> from the integrating effect of the common FO.  If we want real
> >> practical applications **available to public inspection**, the
> >> public is going to have to pay for it.    (03)

> > #### There are commercial companies which are selling NL interfaces.
> 
> "selling" being the operative word here.
> 
[[PC]] Yes, and they are not based on an ontology used for reasoning to
improve the interpretation, and the details are closely held proprietary
secrets.  There are plenty of NL interfaces - have been for over 20 years.
I haven't seen one that uses an ontology for reasoning (WordNet is not an
ontology).  They tell us ***nothing*** about how an *ontology* can be used,
which is the whole point of the project.    (04)

Pat    (05)

> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (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>