Mike,
(01)
It's probably better to think of every application having multiple views of
data. The view that is presented to the user may differ significantly from the
view that's in memory, which in turn may differ from the view that's persisted.
The question then becomes: Which of these views should be expressed using one's
favorite ontology technology? The answer depends on the application and ranges
from "all of them" to "none at all".
(02)
The case to make, then, derives from understanding when ontologies are
advantageous. One answer: When semantic interoperability is one of the
application's goals. But even that is an oversimplification. As you say, one
still needs to consider the semantics that need to be captured and the ontology
technology at hand.
(03)
Regards,
(04)
Steve Wartik
(05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Bennett
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:52 PM
To: steve.r.ray@xxxxxxxxxx; Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011
Ontology Summit
(06)
Playing devil's advocate: Another way of framing this is that
every application has an ontology anyway. The question is how it
is framed, if at all. Are the meanings of terms resident only in
the head of the developer, or in some logical model with written
term definitions (weak semantics) or in a formal language which
grounds the meanings of terms with reference to some logical
formalism?
(07)
In other words, isn't the case to be made, not the case for
ontologies (those are ubiquitious) but the case for formalizing
the same?
(08)
I agree that this would still not itself be a discussion of the
case for using this or that formalism or language.
(09)
Mike
(010)
On 14/12/2010 16:27, Steve Ray wrote:
> I was relieved to see your message, Todd. My strong sense is that we are not
>yet to the point where the general commercial user accepts the use of
>ontologies of any kind. Therefore, we need to get past that basic hurdle
>before we start trying to make the case for a more sophisticated treatment. We
>need strong examples, quantified in concrete terms.
> (Just my opinion, of course)
>
> - Steve
>
> Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
> Distinguished Research Fellow
> Carnegie Mellon University
> NASA Research Park
> Building 23 (MS 23-11)
> P.O. Box 1
> Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
> Email: steve.r.ray@xxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: (650) 587-3780
> Cell: (202) 316-6481
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd J
>Schneider
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:20 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> Cc: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion; ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the
>2011 Ontology Summit
>
> Nicola,
>
> While I agree with your premise and its value (and promote
> this aspect), there is still great reluctance to make use
> of semantic technologies in general and ontologies and
> their development paradigms in particular.
>
> So, as part of making the business case for the use of
> semantic technologies and ontologies I suggest starting
> with the general business case of why to use ontologies,
> focusing on data models (something familiar and the cause
> of many systems and software problems), how ontologies
> and semantic technologies can greatly aid in these areas,
> then bring out the specific capabilities that provide
> such aid (e.g., ontological analysis), then how these
> capabilities are already used (to some extent) in
> current practices (i.e., why there shouldn't be great
> trepidation in their use).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> From:
> Nicola Guarino<guarino@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> Ontology Summit 2011 discussion<ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 12/14/2010 07:01 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011
> Ontology Summit
> Sent by:
> ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I also agree very much with John and Matthew concerning
> the importance of high quality ontologies, and on their observation that
> the quest for high quality data models in software engineering definitely
> reflects a sensitivity to important ontological aspects much higher than
> what we find in people just focusing on ontology languages.
>
> In the light of this, I suggest to specify a bit more the
> overall theme of our Summit, which in my opinion could be "Making the case
> for ontological analysis" instead of "Making the case for ontology". An
> alternative could be "Making the case for high-quality ontologies".
>
> The reason for this proposal should be self-evident, I
> believe. Deciding how much effort to put in developing a particular
> ontology is a crucial choice, and it is very important to distinguish the
> cases where a proper ontological analysis pays off, and is indeed a
> crucial aspect of success, from those where a "lightweight" approach is
> sufficient.
>
> Just brainstorming...
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Nicola
>
> On 9 Dec 2010, at 16:03, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> Dear Matthew and Peter,
>>
>> MW:
>>> ... my forthcoming book “Developing High Quality Data Models”.
> Substitute
>>> ontology for data model and the same argument applies. The benefits
> come
>>> from improving and automating decision making through fit-for-purpose
>>> information to support those decisions.
>> I very strongly agree. Software engineers have been doing ontology
>> (avant la lettre, as they say) for a very long time. And much of that
>> work has been very good -- sometimes much better than what people are
>> doing with so-called ontology languages.
>> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
(011)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
(012)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
(013)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (014)
|