Todd, Chris, Michael, and Matthew, (01)
TJS:
> To all concerned or interested the SOA ontology put forth by the Open Group
> is rubbish for many reasons. (02)
CM:
> it seems like there are some pretty obvious instance/subclass confusions. (03)
MG:
> this example is not so clear-cut, since there it is possible
> to interpret these statements within a process ontology
> such as PSL: (04)
MW:
> Then the best you can say is that the example is ambiguous.
> Still not good. (05)
CM:
> ... given the background ontology, it was a mistake for them
> to classify those objects as instances of TASK rather than as
> subclasses thereof. (06)
All these comments illustrate some points that field linguists
and lexicographers learned many, many decades ago: (07)
1. People can use their native language much more accurately
than they can describe it. (08)
2. But even educated speakers make gross errors when they try
to explain points of grammar. Their metalevel comments about
their own language are extremely unreliable. (09)
3. Therefore, the data chosen for language analysis should be
taken from examples that people speak or write for the
purpose of communicating with other people -- *not* from
their claims about their "intuition". (010)
These are reasons why knowledge acquisition should be based
on automated or semi-automated tools. Well designed software
is far more capable of making consistent and reliable choices
than the overwhelming majority of people who learned some
so called "ontology language". (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|