+1
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:54 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Webby objects
Happy Turkey Day Everyone!
John Sowa wrote:
1. Why aren't mainstream IT and web sites using ontologies?
A small number are using Dublin Core. Beyond that, a few companies have proprietary ontologies for their own use. Although there probably are some that use ontologies to interchange data, the vast majority are doing everything they need to do with XML messages, and don’t get anything extra from an ontology that XML can’t provide with far more supporting infrastructure.
Consider two business partners that exchange data. For example, a lender and a title company. All they care about exchanging is information about the property getting the loan. All additional ontology structuring is irrelevant. They certainly wouldn’t want to use the SAME ontology because they are in different businesses and have different concerns. The only ontology they would care about relates to properties on which they lend, and not on concerns about the definition of a field or river or mountain.
2. Google, Microsoft, IBM, and other major corporations are
well aware of the SW tools, but they don't use them. Why?
The only realistic answer, IMHO, is that they don’t see any advantage in ontologies that they don’t already have in more maintainable forms of SQL and XML.
Google, for example, interfaces with consumers running search and with advertisers tracking consumers and their wants. Consumers won’t recognize arcane ontologies, and wouldn’t care about them if they did. They want what they want by the name(s) they are used to and they certainly don’t want to have to learn irrelevant concepts instead of finding the right place on the web.
Consider how Yahoo, with its taxonomic ontology (I use that term loosely) has fallen way behind Google, with its far simpler word and phrase search. Google may use more sophisticated methods behind the scene, but they don’t burden the consumer with it.
3. What is missing from our tools, techniques, and logics?
Practical value, ease of use, simplification like that used by Google, yet not pressed into the consumers’ faces.
4. What methods work in mainstream development?
Software engineering, including HTML, SQL, XML, and focused development to meet specific requirements, increment by increment. What extra value does ontology bring, if any? (Prefaced with: very little demonstrated ontology value beyond Dublin Core has been seen in the industry).
5. Instead of telling mainstream developers to adopt our methods,
perhaps we should adapt our methods to theirs. But how?
As David suggested, create a few simple, very small ontologies like Dublin Core for other common interchange needs – though I have no idea what those needs might be. The OForum has only discussed enormous ontologies with the whole world involved in them, and has insisted on philosophically orthodox structures instead of on ontologies with specific narrow value that can make some difference quickly, as David suggested.
-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 John F Sowa
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:02 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Webby objects
On 11/21/2012 12:05 PM, Peter Yim wrote:
> just so we are clear ... ONTOLOG (a.k.a. Ontolog Forum)
> is a community of practice...
>
> Therefore, we don't do standards here
I'm *not* proposing a new standard. We already have lots of standards.
What I am proposing is that we ask some fundamental questions. The
basic question is "Why aren't practitioners using ontologies?"
The WWW grew very rapidly without any standards. Tim B-L put together
some good ideas in a very fruitful combination, and the growth curve
for the WWW was exponential. There was no need to promote it --
people jumped on the bandwagon as soon as they saw it.
Instead of promoting anything or standardizing anything, I believe
we should be asking some soul-searching questions:
1. Why aren't mainstream IT and web sites using ontologies?
2. Google, Microsoft, IBM, and other major corporations are
well aware of the SW tools, but they don't use them. Why?
3. What is missing from our tools, techniques, and logics?
4. What methods work in mainstream development?
5. Instead of telling mainstream developers to adopt our methods,
perhaps we should adapt our methods to theirs. But how?
In addition to the questions, we should also discuss ideas about
new directions and approaches that might lead to answers.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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