Dear John, (01)
> >> The point I have been repeating in different ways is that there is no
> >> such thing as an ideal upper level. Many people have reached that
> >> conclusion after working very hard to find one.
> > This follows from the fact that what is best suited for one purpose may
> > not be best suited for another. If one application uses a narrow number
> > of concepts, it need not have upper ontology components irrelevant to
> > the application.
> And this is true even for a single corporation. All departments may
> contribute to the same product line. But engineering, manufacturing,
> sales, finance, buildings, services, shipping, human resources, etc.,
> have very different ways of talking about and dealing with them. (02)
MW: Yes, but the different departments need to talk to each other, and this
is most efficiently done with a "common language" which need not be "ideal"
for any of them, but which each is able to translate into and out of. What
we found in Shell was, that as you did this successively, there was
considerable advantage in giving up your own "language" and increasingly
sharing fewer more common ones. (03)
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (06)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (07)