On 3/3/2011 7:54 PM, Michael F Uschold wrote:
> I think there is emerging agreement that we need to focus less on
> abstract principles and more on concrete examples that MADE MONEY and
> for the technology folk, WHY the money was made. (01)
That is an idea everybody can understand. I like it. (02)
And I had a further thought about why I object to describing
the purpose of an ontology as "eliminating ambiguity": that
is a negative way of talking. (03)
In a positive sense: The primary purpose of an ontology is to make
the structure of the subject matter clear. You don't need a formal
notation to be clear. You can be clear in ordinary English. (04)
But I admit that a formal notation is useful because it
makes it impossible to be vague, ambiguous, or imprecise.
But what it says so precisely might not be what the author
intended. (05)
In any case, I would stress the idea of *clarity*. (06)
That is a positive virtue that improves communication and
understanding among the humans *and* the machines. (07)
Next, emphasize (a) how improved communication makes money
and (b) how poor communication loses money. (08)
John (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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (010)
|