John B, Peter, and Patrick, (01)
JB:
> My admonition is that we should keep out eyes open and be receptive to
> what the markets want. We just might learn something along the way. (02)
Nobody can disagree with that. But it's hard to judge the market
for anything until you try to sell it. It's worth gambling on an
untested technology, because the payoff can be high. But too many
technologies promoted for widespread use long before they have
demonstrated their value. (03)
PFB:
> The choice isn't between a bag of terms and a full-blown ontology
> (in the sense that I think you mean). Defined terms are a starting
> point but the most important next step, IMO, is the relationships
> between those terms, understanding how one term is related to another. (04)
I agree. All those issues and a few thousand others are important. (05)
PFB:
> Those two taken together form the basis of any decent ontology,
> however informally modeled. (06)
I don't care what words are used. But some distinctions are
important. To avoid confusion, it is helpful to use terms that
clearly indicate the distinctions. (07)
PD:
> John Sowa ... claims that if something does not meet the
> requirements of formal logic, it is a terminology and perhaps
> not a good one at that. (08)
Actually, most people who define terminologies are professionals,
and their products have proved to be valuable for their field.
Unfortunately, many of the things that people call ontologies
were defined by amateurs, and a formal notation doesn't add
any value to a poorly thought-out terminology. (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)
|