[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Guo's word senses and Foundational Ontologies

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 13:48:11 -0400
Message-id: <02f701c9e3aa$4c31fe20$e495fa60$@com>
John, you missed the critical adverb:    (01)

> PC> You do need an FO if multiple independently developed
>  > domain ontologies want to share data and interoperate
>  > automatically.
> That is false.  You can make independently developed systems
> with inconsistent or even undefined upper levels interoperate.
> OntologyWorks does that all the time.  The key point is that
> you should *never* try to merge two total ontologies.  Instead,
> you only need to extract the parts that are necessary for the
> task(s) on which interoperability is required.
>    (02)

**automatically** means that the systems that are developed independemntly
can still share information accurately **without any further human
intervention**.  None of the projects you cite supports that capability.
They all require some experts to negotiate differences of terminology or
meaning **after the localsystems are developed**, before the desired
interoperabilty emerges.  That can be done in lots of ways and does not
require any ontology unless the local systems are ontology-based.    (03)

Pat    (04)

Patrick Cassidy
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx    (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)

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