One barrier that we are dealing with currently is that applications that one
might think would be "obvious" for ontologies appear to be quite difficult
to implement in languages like OWL due to difficulties with getting the
details right. An example is a signal detection and classification
application we've been playing with for a couple of months, trying to see if
we could use ontologies to describe classes of radio signals that might be
of interest, classes of noise that might be encountered, and then reasoning
from the ontology to suggest signal processing strategies that are
recommended for a particular classification task. Although OWL 2.0 has
added ranges for scalar variables and pattern match to strings, it is
difficult to do any computation within OWL as part of the definition of the
signal class. This means that we have to augment OWL with other languages
and rule systems (e.g. JENA, MATLAB, etc.). Furthermore, signals in real
life are not always so clear cut, so we need to reason with uncertainty, and
thus we need to add Bayesian-like conditional probabilities to the ontology
and then be able to reason with these probabilities. This has led us to
look for some sort of hybrid Bayesian Network/ontology strategy, but we're
having trouble finding released and supported software that might succeed at
this task. As we continue to pile on more languages and tools to handle
additional aspects of the problem, the resulting Rube Goldberg system
becomes less appealing and more difficult to sell as a practical and useful
idea. (01)
Of course, we're just starting to look at this area, so we are still
relatively ill-informed and open to suggestions. (02)
I am curious about the idea that a language like OWL might be suitable for
describing a project's requirements. UML has had reasonable success at
providing a conscise description of an object-oriented program, though it is
still a bit controversial due to the cost of the tools and the extra labor
required to create the UML model and then maintain it as the code evolves.
Are there projects that could be better managed using OWL instead of UML? (03)
The best applications of ontologies still seem to me to be knowledge
representation, especially when linked with natural language understanding
and free-form or semi-structured text. Applications to bioinformatics seem
well developed, though I am still trying to understand how these
applications deal with the inevitable contradictions that you find in the
literature. (04)
-- bruce musicus, Aptec Group, NH, USA (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eirich, Peter
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:32 AM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Barriers to adoption of
ontologies (06)
Over many years, I have found ontology to be viewed as a nice-to-have by
most project managers but not as an essential building block for a project,
even though ontology could make practical contributions to -- at the very
least -- the formulation of a project's requirements. This common viewpoint
is itself a barrier. (07)
Regards,
Peter
_________________________
Peter Eirich
JHU/APL
240-228-7264 (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:22 AM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
Subject: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Barriers to adoption of
ontologies (09)
Dear Colleagues, (010)
Please add to this thread barriers to adoption of ontologies and ontology
based solutions you have encountered and any strategies you have found
helpful in overcoming them. (011)
Regards (012)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (013)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (016)
|