Dear Leo and David,
David wrote:
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?
Leo wrote:
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.
If the ontology is in said grunt’s
mind, then why should the said grunt spend a lot of well paid hours learning
some abstract ontology that is NOT in said grunt’s mind? I don’t
see a value there.
My experience in software development in
teams is that the vocabulary used is absolutely essential to the two
programmers discussing their current issue of interfacing with each
other. Whether other programmers use the same word or not isn’t
significant to them; they are not writing programs to be readable until possibly
after the said programs actually work. So the problem is already solved
before any ontology is used, dictated, or agreed to. Then there’s
time to adjust words to fit some manager’s choice of vocabulary, but that
is AFTER the problem of a working program has already been solved.
So how does an ontology with stipulated
vocabulary help solve the problem in the first place? I agree that a
debated and consensus vocabulary makes the future maintenance task a bit
easier, but is it actually worth the added cost of developing? Again, I don’t
see the problem being made simpler, being solved faster, or being developed
less expensively by ontologies. I am willing to listen to examples that
might prove me wrong on that, but so far I have not heard even one that is
larger than Dublin Core.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012
10:14 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What goes into a Lexicon?
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?