Dear Chris,
You wrote:
Leo gave a very clear
answer to that question: "Without an ontology...[t]here is no machine
semantic interpretation." Moreover, the human worker (why the pejorative
"grunt"?) might leave the company and take her knowledge along with her,
a serious problem if it is not well-documented.
Yes, and Leo is absolutely correct. But there is no
machine semantic interpretation of IT projects anyway! The FOL part is in the
SQL database for the most part, and in the SQL procedures or software for the
rest of it. That doesn’t require “machine semantic interpretation” in any
case.
I see Leo’s point as stating that the ontology is
merely leverage to the programmer, not that it removes the need for human
attention. People are needed for semantic interpretation at this time in the
progress of technology. We here hope to move the technology along further so
that “machine semantic interpretation” is more available and more lifelike in
the future, but it isn’t here yet.
What value would be added if there were to be “machine
semantic interpretation” in the first place? Please identify what advantages
that would have brought to the project; I am open to any suggestions you may
have about what that could do in the same value system that the project
addressed. But the discussion in this thread, at least in my personal
interpretation, is about determining what value an ontology would bring to the
project in the first place. At this time, it will NOT bring machine semantic interpretation
of practical size. That is my point; I want to find out if there is any real
value to ontology at this time in technology.
And I consider myself one of those grunts when I was
working on large projects – it’s a word we used with each other all the time.
Nothing pejorative is meant by use of the word; it’s more of a bonding word
than a descriptive one. The people on a large project, facing schedules,
deadlines, tests, redesigns, and iterating over all those tasks develop a
natural community which leads us to think up names like “grunt” to describe
ourselves.
HTH,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:41 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What
goes into a Lexicon?
Am Feb 29, 2012 um 7:31 PM schrieb Rich Cooper:
> ...
> 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.
Leo gave a very clear answer to that question:
"Without an ontology...[t]here is no machine semantic
interpretation." Moreover, the human worker (why the pejorative
"grunt"?) might leave the company and take her knowledge along with
her, a serious problem if it is not well-documented.
-chris
_________________________________________________________________
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