Re: [ontolog-forum] Preferred Ontology Engineering Methodology?

[John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All, Hear! Hear!

"Ontologists Classify Thyselves"

I agree and have said before that it is meaningless to air differences without an understanding of how an ontology will be used. The segregation of ontology types will provide focus to its use or misuse and is an exercise in classification and entails predicates.

The purpose of the classification itself leads to segregation of typed instances.

My suggestion:
Two different ontology types; weak AI and strong AI for lack of better labels. They could be called by a number of different labels such as database, KR, AGI or whatever, but it is the theory and use, NOT the tools that should steer our course. How many of you remember the early SGML tools? Don't they are gone as will be many of today's tools.

Two ontologies, two different discussion groups. They can borrow from each other as appropriate but labeling of postings would probably not work without some tool that enforces tagging by ontology type.

-John Bottoms, past Electronic Manuscript Committee member (developer of the book tag set) and
                           inventor of the web browser.
 FirstStar Systems
 Concord, MA USA

On 2/3/2013 10:16 AM, Sjir Nijssen wrote:

To all,

 

I find it amazing how  at this stage in the development of “ontology”, one can describe a protocol how to develop such an ill defined artefact as ontology.

 

Leo Obrst has proposed to this forum to introduce the concept of a spectrum with several different concepts of ontology, each  with its specific distinguishing name and characteristics.

I would recommend to  this forum to spend time on operationalizing Leo’s idea. Thereafter (having the structure) and not before, the work on a protocol (process, methodology) can start.

Other people would say that as long as a concept is a homonym, it is nearly impossible to communicate usefully  about it.

 

In the world of software and conceptual databases the development of methodologies has been going on for two decades, the seventies and the eighties. It seems that for most ontologists history began thereafter.

 

If one or more points on the “ontology” spectrum have to become mainstream, I would recommend not to let the ontology homonym era last too long.

 

Kind regards

 

Sjir Nijssen

 

Chief Technical Officer

PNA Group

 

Tel:     +31 (0)88-777 0 444

Mob: +31 (0)6-21 510 844

Fax:    +31 (0)88-777 0 499

E-mail: sjir.nijssen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pna-group.com

 

_________________________________________________________________
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)