On 4/21/2013 12:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> First, it is way too long and detailed, more of an essay than a
> communique. It is hard, I would suggest, for anyone to agree with all of
> it unequivocally. I feel like I want to nit-pick with the text all over
> the place. (01)
I sympathize with Pat's concerns. (02)
In particular, I very strongly agree with the following point: (03)
> We do not have enough experience with ontology design and deployment
> to know what the objective standards of "quality" are, still less how
> to manage teams to achieve this nonexistent standard. We don't know
> what are the "activities that need to occur during the phases of a life
> cycle of an ontology", so to go on record with a detailed, confidently
> stated account which claims to be normative, is both inappropriate and
>harmful. (04)
I also believe that the technology is developing so rapidly that the
"best practices" of today are likely to be obsolete in 5 to 10 years. (05)
> "Does the ontology follow best practices; in particular does it implement
> the upper ontology...." Whoa. Is it "best practice" to even HAVE an upper
>ontology?
> That is not clear. Most Web ontologies, for example, are not subsumed under
>any
> particular upper ontology. If our communique starts being used to justify
>managers
> asking ontologists to conform to an upper ontology, we will have done far
>more harm than good. (06)
This is a very important point. Even more important is the question
"What do you mean by an upper ontology?" (07)
For an "integrating ontology" that is designed to enforce a standard,
a detailed upper ontology may be essential. (08)
But for an ontology that is intended to support interoperability with
legacy systems, an upper ontology that it too detailed may actually
*block* interoperability. (09)
> we read the almost plaintive remark "Generally, appreciation of the full
> life cycle of an ontology is not well established within the ontology
>community."
> Damn right. In other words, none of this is based in actual reality. It is
> written as though it comprised observations about the right way to work,
> but in fact, it is not based on observations about how the work is ACTUALLY
>done. (010)
I'll admit that there are some cases where certain techniques were
actually implemented and found to be useful. But it's not clear how
far those techniques can be generalized. (011)
> You might start with CYC, the granddaddy of all large-scale ontologies.
> You will find that the process bears almost no relationship to the fantasy
> you describe here. (012)
That is similar to a suggestion I have made repeatedly, but it has
usually been ignored. I would much, much rather see detailed case
studies of systems that have actually worked -- including some that
have been tried and *failed* -- than read some vague generalities
mixed with a lot of wishful thinking. (013)
John (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Committee Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit-advisors/
Subscriber Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit-advisors/
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Discussion: : http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (015)
|