Patrich Hayes writes: (01)
We simply do not
>yet know what 'well structured' can possibly
>mean, as a general category or classification
>applying uniformly to all ontologies. The world
>has not yet even settled on a single class of
>basic logics to write ontologies in, and notions
>of 'well-structured' must be hostage to the
>underlying language, since the same structure may
>easily be an efficient and robust technique in
>one language and a syntax error or worse in
>another. Most of the criteria given for approval
>in the OBO framework are controversial, for
>example. (BTW, the reason I keep citing OBO is
>that it is the only extant example to cite, not
>that I wish it ill.) (02)
I hope that one OBO Foundry criterion, at least, is non-controversial
to Patrick, this is the criterion to the effect that the ontologies
use a common syntax. Currently this may be either OBO or OWL, but we
would be happy to extend it to FOL / CL, and I personally would
welcome the creation of FOL-based bio-ontologies. (03)
BFO, which is a related ontology project, exists in a FOL version, as
well as in OWL and OBO versions.
http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/bfo/ (04)
For the other criteria see:
http://www.obofoundry.org/crit.shtml
This list is designed to evolve in light of lessons learned. The
principles seem non-controversial at least to many biologists (hence
the success in this community of the OBO Foundry experiment). But
they are to be conceived as forming an experiment, designed to test
potential answers to questions like: "what can 'well structured'
possibly mean, as a general category or classification applying
uniformly to all ontologies [or more precisely: to ontologies
designed to serve the needs of life scientists]'. (05)
If Patrick finds some of them controversial, then the obvious
suggestion would be for him to create an alternative experiment,
using different criteria, and see what happens. If the selected
criteria yielded better results, OBO Foundry would adopt them immediately. (06)
Patrick himself seems, however, to prefer the single principle of:
anything goes. (07)
Which is also, of course, perfectly acceptable.
BS (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (09)
|