Chris:
I agree with you entirely and sorry if I missed that core message in your
original post! ;-)
Your analogy with engineers is interesting, particularly as I don't consider
myself in that profession. What engineers need in addition, for successful
project building, are architects because they (should) combine the
discipline and rigour demanded of the engineers with a clear understanding
of what the client wants. Whilst any engineer worth their salt should
conform to the prescriptions you rightly espouse, they don't always deliver
what the client wants! The architect needs to be the mediator who sees any
project from both points of view. (01)
Cheers,
Peter (02)
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
| bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
| Sent: Thursday, 23 December 2010 20:36
| To: [ontolog-forum]
| Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
| Ontology Technical Standard
|
| On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Research wrote:
| > Going back to the top of this thread for a moment:
| > - Todd states that the SOA Ontology from the Open Group "is rubbish
| > for many reasons" but that "there is some value in this work".
| > - I asked for some justification to the initial statement.
| > - a whole series of comments are posted regarding modelling errors and
| > shortcomings...
| > On the thread, we have followed a typical Ontolog Forum pattern of
| > spiralling away from the initial point and exploring fine modelling
| > points - all good in its own way, and a reflection of the breadth of
| > opinion and ideas of the group, which is great.
|
| Actually, *my* point wasn't really to comment on a modeling error or
explore
| fine modeling points, although I probably obscured the point by being
explicit
| about the details. My actual point was that large, well-publicized and (in
some
| cases) well-funded ontologies are being constructed by folks who are still
| confused about the most elementary points of logic and knowledge
| representation -- notably, in this case, the difference between instance
and
| subclass, a confusion the KR community straightened out almost as soon as
it
| cropped up over 35 years ago. For someone tasked with constructing an
| ontology to be confused about it in this day and age is like an engineer
tasked
| with building a bridge to be confused about, say, the difference between
force
| and torque.
|
| I think there is still a pretty pervasive idea (despite regular rejoinders
from the
| likes of John Sowa, Michael Grüninger, Pat Hayes, Leo Obrst, etc) that
building
| quality ontologies doesn't require any sort of special technical training,
just a
| clear head, a bit of common sense, and a copy of Protege (an excellent and
| useful tool, let me hasten to add). To the contrary, at a minimum, a
competent,
| well-educated ontological engineer must have a mastery of first-order
logic and
| related systems like modal logic (of which description logic can be
considered a
| variety) as well as a deep familiarity with the history of knowledge
| representation and KR systems. Broad knowledge of the history of
philosophy
| as well as contemporary metaphysics and philosophy of language would not
| only sharpen analytical skills and provide a rich source of ontological
exploration
| to draw upon, but would also prevent ontological engineers from wasting
time
| reinventing the wheel (typically with an inferior design).
|
| Until ontological engineers, like engineers of every other other stripe,
can be
| assumed to have a well-defined baseline of knowledge and a basic technical
| skills, an endless repetition of elementary modeling errors and,
consequently, a
| stream of (at best) unreliable and (at worst) incoherent ontologies are to
be
| expected, and skepticism about the usefulness of ontologies will
(justifiably)
| persist. We trust every new bridge that is built to hold us up (in part)
because of
| the knowledge and skill of the engineers who designed it; sound bridges
that
| perform their function reliably are the norm, not the exception. Why
should it
| be any different for ontologies?
|
| Chris Menzel
|
|
| _________________________________________________________________
| 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
| (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|