|
I attended the SemTech conference this last June in San Francisco. This conference is oriented toward business uses rather than academic ones and so was mostly concerned about how to make ontologies work and not who had the "best" ontology. This may have affected their division of the world into "scruffies" and "neats" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies) with the "neats" being those who seek a more rigorous ontology that incorporates provability and the "scruffies" being those who want to link data and not worry about how best to represent reality in an ontology. In my reading of the article, the Computer Code and Esperanto groups would be like the scruffies and the Mathematicians would have an orientation like the neats. This gets away from any focus on any one discipline as being allied with one or another framework.
Paul
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Denise Warzel sent this to an ISO group that has some passing relationship to ontology work, and is struggling to understand the concept. I thought the Ontolog Forum might find it 'interesting'. I certainly think there is validity in the characterizations of the viewpoints, although I rather resent the choices of group designations, being a mathematician who mostly supports the 'computer code' viewpoint. -- "Thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules." - Capt. Jack Sparrow of The Black Pearl _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |