Thanks for update Ken, (01)
even if it is not quite clear what all of these diagrams
mean, I must say I like it! It has a certain appeal as
going someway towards making very global statements
about ontologies. (02)
I hope that we can fix on some ways to assign both
the dimensions and the values more cleanly, though. (03)
I did not understand, for example, how 'intended use'
was being used. (04)
WordNet has a low 'intended use' and GeospatialML
(to take some at random) a very high one. Is this
'good' or 'bad'? Since WordNet is aimed at many
different kinds of uses (i.e., any natural language
processing where similarities or difference between
words are at issue), this would seem to me to be
a much broader 'intended use' than GeospatialML....
so why are the numbers as they are? (This is not
a criticism of course, just a way into discussing
some of these things....) (05)
Similarly, how can WordNet have a low granularity,
when it contains extremely detailed (if not ontologically
very interesting) divisions? (06)
And for almost all the dimensions I'd suggest a devaluation. That
several ontologies are already scoring 5/5 on
structure (despite no or little formalised notion
of modules and inter-module links) suggests (wrongly)
that there's little more to do! So I'd suggest going
up to 10 on many scales but leaving the current scores
as they are. That at least would give a visual impression
that the job is just starting rather than (in the
case of SUMO and COSMO !) almost finished. (07)
Looking forward to more on this over the next
couple of days, (08)
John B. (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/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (010)
|