To: | <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:17:35 -0000 |
Message-id: | <808637A57BC3454FA660801A3995FA8F06A2D20F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Dear
Pat,
MW: I have to disagree with this. Ontologies are much more analogous to
the specifications that software is made from. Standards often form part of that
specification, and even user requirements are usually agreed amongst the users
or their representatives. On the other hand I quite agree that few ontologies
(as far as I know only those developed as data models in ISO like ISO 15926)
have been developed this way. On the whole, I think it is a statement about the
maturity of ontology as a discipline that people like yourself would consider
that an open process for development was such a hard thing to achieve in
practice. It implies that getting consensus at present is hard to
impossible.
Regards _________________________________________________________________ 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/OntologySummit2008/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008 Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open Ontology Repository", matthew.west |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontology-summit] [ont-of-ont] Initial ideas for properties and relationships between ontologies, Michael Gruninger |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open Ontology Repository", matthew.west |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open Ontology Repository", Pat Hayes |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |