Steve, (01)
That is certainly true: (02)
> ... don't forget that the question is really "can we define
> a scale within which one can place true ontologies, thesauri,
> folksonomies, etc.?". To answer that, we MAY have to answer
> "what is an ontology". (03)
Not only "may", but "must". (04)
My answer to the question is that an ontology serves as a map
between natural languages and artificial languages. (05)
That puts type hierarchies at the center, with links to
NL lexical resources such as WordNet on one side and
links to implementations such as Cyc on the other side. (06)
And by the way, I *detest* the word "folksonomy". First of all,
the word "folk" implies some derogatory or deprecating attitude.
Yet some of those things embody more insight into the issues
than some of the things that use a formal notation. (07)
For any resources that we use or analyze, I suggest that we adopt
the terminology that their developers use to characterize them.
I don't know of anybody who calls their own work "a folksonomy". (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (010)
|