On Jan 11, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Peter Brown wrote:
> ...
> I remain baffled by the terms (and the presumed concepts behind them – which
>are *not* clear at all) of ‘ontology engineer’ and ‘ontology engineering’. I
>do not think that one can ‘engineer’ an ontology any more than one can
>engineer a meeting: one can bring skills, methods and tools to the meeting (as
>Chair of a meeting for example) and can make sometimes significant progress
>even in ignorance of the subject of the meeting – if the purpose of the role
>of Chair is to help the meeting to come to some conclusion. However, once a
>Chair starts to pronounce on matters and get involved in the substance of a
>meeting, those skills and methods become overshadowed by their ignorance or
>partisanship. (01)
Hello Peter, (02)
I don't understand your analogy. An ontology is a concrete artifact (unlike a
meeting). And, like the production of any quality artifact, the production of
a good ontology requires training and expertise. On the face of it, anyway,
"ontology engineer" seems a reasonable title for those with the appropriate
training and expertise. (Opinions vary, of course, regarding the nature and
extent of such training and expertise.) (03)
I have to say that I don't see how an ontology is in any way enough like a
meeting to support your argument that, because it makes no sense to engineer a
meeting, it makes no sense to engineer an ontology. (04)
-chris (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|