|To:||Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:09:45 -0500|
At 10:14 AM -0400 3/21/08, Barry Smith wrote:
Ah, if only I were...
Well, good question. While I agree that does make a lot of sense, I had formed the impression that the OOR would not impose this as a criterion, since one of the discussion points is that all ontologies in it must be in a language with an openly published specification. Presumably this is only meaningful if the OOR is intended to be, as it were, multilingual (no?).
A multilingual repository would be a lot more useful if it came with recommended ways to translate between the languages. For OWL and FOL/CL this is now thoroughly understood, for example. For things like UML it is much more problematic, as there is not even a common underlying semantic framework within which to compare such notations with logics.
Currently this may be either OBO or OWL, but we
welcome the creation of FOL-based bio-ontologies.
One can define a sublanguage of CLIF which is virtually isomorphic to the OWL abstract syntax. If I ever get time (in a month or so, maybe) I will write this up in detail as an alternative OWL syntax.
BFO, which is a related ontology project, exists in a FOL version, as
Right; many 'professional' ontology projects seem to be created first in FOL and then projected into lesser languages for real-world service.
For the other criteria see:
criteria yielded better results, OBO Foundry would adopt them immediately.
I don't have anything remotely close to the resources needed to mount such an experiment.
Patrick himself seems, however, to prefer the single principle of:
More accurately, I see this as more like a free market, no doubt influenced by thinking about the semantic web. Of course there is a lot of dross out there, and indeed most of it is ignored by everyone except search engines. But I don't think there is a single 'perfect shopper', either. Different users communities, and sometimes different users, will have different demands to place upon ontologies. We are just at the beginning of finding out what ontologies might be useful for. It seems way too soon to be trying to create a single-product world, no matter how good the product is.
I think the main differences between our attitudes is that you see ontologies as representing a distillation of a common insight, ideally amounting to something close to a universally agreed scientific theory; whereas I see ontologies as much more like useful pieces of software. There are many text editors, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses, adherents and detractors. No size will fit all.
40 South Alcaniz St.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means, Barry Smith|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means, Barry Smith|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means, Barry Smith|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means, Barry Smith|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|