Just having vocabularies ensures that humans must always be in the interpretation loop, not just at development time, but at all runtimes. Without an ontology,
there is no representation of what those vocabulary terms mean, except in some documentation (data dictionaries, etc.) that humans have to read in order to interpret. There is no machine semantic interpretation. If I give you a database column name such as
AAV12, for example, what does it mean? You have to either know it or look it up. The words and phrases you use are only “meaningful” because you have complex representations (concepts? ontologies?) in your mind as a human.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Eddy
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:43 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What goes into a Lexicons
Leo -
On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
Almost every “view” or “context” has two components: 1) the ontology view, i.e., the projection of a
subset of classes, properties, axioms, etc., from the ontology, to satisfy a specific application need, and 2) the vocabulary to be associated with the elements of the ontology view.
I think I agree.
So what's the purpose/value/utility of the ontology view?
If grunts are working away with their local vocabularies/jargon/local opaque language (& VERY unlikely to be aware of the ontology in the background), what is the value add of the ontology?
|