On 12/17/2010 10:54 AM, Jack Ring wrote:
> Are you saying that the incidence of error will not be a factor
> in the value proposition that customers will find compelling?
> What is your attitude toward ontologies with an error rate
> of 1 per 1000 assertions? (01)
Errors are always a factor, but some are more serious than others. (02)
As I'm writing this, the radio in the background had a news
item about an investigation of hedge funds that may have used
inside information. (03)
The interviewer asked whether that would be a "big case",
and the response was "Any case in which you are indicted
is a big case for you." (04)
I believe that a similar principle applies to ontologies. (05)
But I would also recommend tools that can detect and avoid
as many errors as possible. For example, the software for
Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) generates lattices that are
guaranteed to be consistent. See the FCA home page: (06)
http://www.upriss.org.uk/fca/fca.html (07)
This is a convenient method for ensuring that multiple
inheritance does not create contradictions. But FCA only
guarantees consistency with the data you give it. If you
don't give it all the relevant data, FCA can't use it. (08)
The GIGO law has not been repealed, but some people try
to deodorize the garbage by spraying some ontology on it. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|