[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Constructs, primitives, terms

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:09:31 -0500
Message-id: <4F60B4AB.4020509@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed,    (01)

Your examples are good illustrations of what I was trying to say.
Summary:    (02)

  1. Interoperability requires much more than unique identifiers that
     point to definitions shared by all applications.    (03)

  2. For example, the shared definitions that support interoperability
     for transactions through Amazon.com include only as much detail
     as necessary to support Amazon operations -- and no more.    (04)

  3. In different applications, those weak definitions are probably
     inadequate for messages that use the same terms in contexts with
     more detailed specializations (i.e., axioms or constraints).    (05)

  4. More generally, any "universal" ontology intended for a wide range
     of applications will have to be underspecified in order to support
     an open-ended range of models.    (06)

  5. Each domain of application will need to add more information
     that specializes the definitions in the general ontology. And
     the details added for one domain or one kind of application are
     likely to be inconsistent with the details needed for others.    (07)

> The problem is that customers looking for contract manufacturing
> services need very specific capabilities.  A thousand firms can turn
> parts, but what is needed is the ability to turn parts of a certain
> metal alloy and of a specific set of lengths and widths, and often
> within a certain tolerance.  Trying to find that needle in haystack of
> 'can turn metal parts' and 'have XYZ machines with a 2-meter bed' (which
> the supplier might have mentioned) is not easy.  On average, the
> customer gets 50+ 'highly ranked' supplier entries, with the first 27
> being useless, mostly after determination by phone call.
> That is why making a strong ontology for the domain is important.    (08)

I agree.  Those customers aren't going to use the info provided
by Amazon.com for their purchases. In fact, if I were going to buy
a book, a computer, or a camera, I would probably use other sources
to get more info about it.    (09)

> ... making a strong ontology for the domain will please no one,
> and probably solve few problems.  Business want to advertise their
> advantages to customers, and they make their market by trading off
> one domain of emphasis for another.    (010)

I agree.  But the only points I was trying to make are the ones I
summarized above.    (011)

John    (012)

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    (013)

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