Re: [ontolog-forum] Architectural considerations in Ontology Development

[David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John, Ed, et al -

On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:15 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

For ontology, that implies that any new ontology must be
able to interoperate with the implicit ontology of the legacy code.

And since pretty much by definition there is NO ontology for the legacy systems.

We'd be EXTREMELY lucky if there were reasonably consistent naming conventions (but don't plan on it).

Unless, of course, there's some magic that can extract usable ontologies from existing systems in a week or so.

But I'm pretty sure such practical reverse engineering is of minimal interest to the Ontology world.

This week I've seen what appeared to be a promising corporate glossary.  On first use with 5 terms which were not found... oops!  That's one prospect who's never going to return.  And this was just a simple glossary.

- David

_________________________________________________________________
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)