Michael, (01)
Your note describes the contribution of a well designed terminology. (02)
JFS
>> I would also like to ask OWL advocates about those popular ontologies
>> whose only "definitions" are English phrases marked as comments. What,
>> if anything, do they get from such an ontology that goes beyond what
>> they could get from a well-written terminology? (03)
MB
> I get self describing homonym-free terminology. Whenever I stumble over such
> a term, I can get it's definition in one or several natural languages
> automatically by dereferencing the term. I can also be sure that the
> definition I get is the only and authoritative definition for this term. (04)
That is what terminologists have been doing for over a century.
Computers help them edit, curate, and distribute their terminologies. (05)
But I made the following observation about the way people use OWL: (06)
JFS
> the overwhelming number of OWL "ontologies" published on the WWW just
> take the informal info from a terminology, put angle brackets around
> it, and call it an ontology. (07)
As I said, I have no objection to using OWL for applications that
really take advantage of its automated reasoning methods. Do you use
any of those methods for your applications? If so, how? (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|