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
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
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)
|