Re: [ontolog-forum] doing standards [was - Re: Webby objects]

["Andries van Renssen" <andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Leo, Doug, Amanda,

Separating NL vocabularies from Ontology terms is one option, but IMHO not the best one.

Creating a separate Ontologies language that only maps to NL terms unnecessarily isolates the ontology world from the application world.

There are solutions to solve synonym and homonym management and use without such a separation.

 

Andries

 

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, November 22, 2012 16:59, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> Sure, Amanda, and that's why I (and we) advocate using natural
> language vocabularies that are linked/mapped to ontologies.

If you are referring to advocating the separation of NL vocabularies from
ontology term names, we certainly agree.  The ontology needs to express
an N-N mapping between NL terms and ontology terms.

> This was a hard lesson
> learned  (initially, by others, before my time) in the DoD in the early
> 1990s, and that I personally experienced in the metadata wars of the
> 2000s, where people will fight to the death to include their "words",
> mistaking these for the concepts behind them.*

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)