[IB] > > If I have an issue with this idea, it is one of pragmatism. As an
> aspiration, a common foundation ontology is something I would really
> support. There seems to me to be a couple of practical problems:
>
> * Reaching consensus - ontology is a topic that attracts people with
> strong opinions. Consensus requires compromise, and I don't see much of that
> going on in this community. In my experience of developing ISO standards, it
> usually requires a commercial reward to ensure true consensus is met -
> i.e. they all (well, most) stop bickering if they can see some profitability
> in not bickering. I don't think ontology is at the maturity level where
> huge sums of money depend on its success or failure, so I fear consensus is
> going to be nigh impossible.
> (01)
[PC] That is the primary problem, but I think the difficulty has been greatly
overestimated. (02)
Pat: I was involved in the same ISO standards process/organization that Ian was
(Matthew was as well) and agree with him 100%, and then some, about the
difficulty of reaching consensus. Reaching consensus on the meaning of terms
within a diverse body of individuals is far harder than you may imagine
regardless of the starting conditions. Have you participated in many group
efforts aimed at standardizing the meaning of terms or the meaning of elements
in a model? (Which is not at all meant to be a snide question - this is a
genuine query out of curiosity.) (03)
Bill (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|