Dear Barry, (01)
I'd like to pick up on one of the examples you use. (02)
Whilst I agree that you should avoid circular definitions. the following
is not in my view circular: (03)
QUOTE Thus, for example, there isn't much point in defining "cordless 'phone"
as "a telephone that has no cord." END QUOTE (04)
The true form of this is:
An X1 is an X2 without an X3. (05)
This is clearly not circular. The confusion arises because people are
inclined to forget that a term is just a string, and you do not get
its meaning by looking inside the string, but by looking at its definition.
However, it is noticable that strings that capture the essence of the
definition are often convenient, when there is not a word that captures
the meaning directly. I would even consider that this was an aid to
intelligibility rather than a barrier. (06)
Regards (07)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 621148
Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (08)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (09)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Barry
> Smith
> Sent: 18 March 2008 20:42
> To: Ontology Summit 2008; 'Ontology Summit 2008'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open
> Ontology Repository"
>
>
> I tend to agree that we should modify ii. It is generally better that
> ontologies are built by small terms (including single-member teams).
> But then generally, I think, maintence should allow a more
> open process.
>
> We tried to define a metric for intelligibility of ontology
> elements here:
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/7/212
> I think 'transparent' in iii. is intended to mean: the ontology
> development process is publicly documented e.g. by being carried out
> through use of email fora which are web-accessible to all. This is
> the policy maintained for example by the OBO Foundry
> (http://obofoundry.org).
> BS
>
>
> At 01:22 AM 3/18/2008, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_085A_01C88896.82D7C5B0"
> >Content-Language: en-us
> >
> >Just to add: I would also object to ii, because it would exclude
> >locally developed ontologies that are precisely aligned with some
> >foundation ontology maintained in the OOR and therefore highly
> >reusable and integratable with others.
> >
> >I'm not sure what 'transparent' in iii. means. I would include as a
> >metric of an ontology how well documented it is. As a crude first
> >approximation, the average number of words in the comment field of
> >each ontology element might be calculated, to give potential users a
> >guess as to how difficult it will be to guess the intended meanings
> >of the ontology elements. The more documentation, the better. Of
> >course, better organized documentation is also better, but harder to
> >find a metric for.
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >Patrick Cassidy
> >MICRA, Inc.
> >908-561-3416
> >cell: 908-565-4053
> >cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Aldo Gangemi
> >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:20 PM
> >To: Ontology Summit 2008
> >Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open
> >Ontology Repository"
> >
> >
> >Il giorno 17/mar/08, alle ore 19:43, Pat Hayes ha scritto:
> >
> >
> >At 1:19 PM -0400 3/17/08, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
> >Okay, let me try to summarize. Everybody, please let me know if I
> >misrepresented your position.
> >We are discussing the scope of the OOR, thus the minimal
> requirements an
> >ontology has to meet.
> >Peter Yim and Ravi Sharma suggest the following:
> >(i) the ontology is based on open standards AND
> >(ii) an ontology that is created and maintained in a
> cooperative process
> >that is, in principle, open to everybody who wants to participate AND
> >(iii) an ontology that is created and maintained in a transparent
> >process AND
> >(iv) the ontology is accessible to all who can be identified or
> >authenticated (at least Read only) AND
> >(v) the ontology is available under a license that includes
> virtually no
> >restrictions on the use and distribution of the ontology.
> >[I assume that a standard is considered to be "open" if and
> only if it
> >meets analogs of criteria (ii)-(v), FN]
> >Matthew West objects to (v).
> >Pat Hayes objects to (ii) and (iii).
> >
> >
> >For clarification, I don't object to (ii) and (iii), but I do think
> >that these should not be required. Insisting on any conditions on
> >the process that gave rise to the ontology adds a considerable
> >burden both to the cost of creating an ontology and to the task of
> >checking its credentials, and is completely irrelevant to the users
> >of the ontology. Very few, if any, extant published ontologies fully
> >meet conditions (ii) and (iii) above. Ontologies are not standards:
> >they are more analogous to pieces of software. No software has ever
> >been created by a process satisfying condition (ii).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I agree: why should the effort of a lone wolf be kept out? :)
> >BTW, consider that there is no real lone wolf in the ontology
> >wilderness: all of us are actually working on the basis of previous
> >work, which is a (weak?) form of collaboration. What is otherwise
> >scientific literature for?
> >
> >Aldo
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________
> >
> >Aldo Gangemi
> >
> >Senior Researcher
> >Laboratory for Applied Ontology
> >Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
> >National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
> >Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
> >Tel: +390644161535
> >Fax: +390644161513
> ><mailto:aldo.gangemi@xxxxxxxxxxx>aldo.gangemi@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >http://www.loa-cnr.it/gangemi.html
> >
> >icq# 108370336
> >
> >skype aldogangemi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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/ (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (012)
|