+1 (01)
Though of course one can argue about the details of the ontological
curriculum. (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
> Sent: 23 December 2010 19:36
> 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)
|