ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] What goes into a Lexicon?

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:27:10 -0800
Message-id: <D60A7AFE350D47E8A4965D73E1085156@Gateway>
Dear Kingsley and John,    (01)

KI:>    Co-existence is what everyone needs, build
        (with minimal disruption) upon what
already
        exists. In my experience, it works 100% of
the
        time.    (02)

Agreed.  It would be lovely to have the luxury to
build some IT system over the second time so we
could get it right.  That luxury is never
available.  The first time, it has to be as right
as it can be.  After that, just document the wish
list other than for minor adjustments or database
extensions.      (03)

This brings another market into mind.  Ontology
designers that produce a well documented, highly
learnable and usable ontology (i.e., something
simple and down in the details of a domain) could
provide a satisfying brick to many of those first
time developments.  The available budget could be
spent building on top of something
noncontroversial, such as ontologies about f = ma,
e = ir, ropes don't break and such.  That is the
way software evolved from the '80s onward, when
applications and packages began to rule the market
instead of tailored development.      (04)

But the search for an abstract, anthromathomorphic
ontology is, IMHO, a lost cause from the
beginning.  All financial justification is from
the application up, not from the philosophy down.    (05)


-Rich    (06)

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (07)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 2:53 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What goes into a
Lexicon?    (08)

On 2/24/12 11:35 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> CEOs want results.  It's up to the people who
work for them to find
> the best way to produce results.   Those few
people who tried to
> replace RDBs with RDF were fired for producing
disasters.
Anyone that tried to replace RDBMS engines with
triples or quad stores, 
in "rip and replace" mode deserves to be fired.    (09)

No sane entity can afford "rip and replace" .    (010)

Co-existence is what everyone needs, build (with
minimal disruption) 
upon what already exists. In my experience, it
works 100% of the time.    (011)

--     (012)

Regards,    (013)

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog:
http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/abou
t
LinkedIn Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen    (014)








_________________________________________________________________
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    (015)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>