AGC
> ... having one single ontology does not solve the problem. actually
> IMHO it does not solve anything. it could probably be a good idea to
> address the issue of interoperability across ontologies rather than
> pretending to have " one ontology per domain". (01)
Yes, indeed. (02)
There are already a huge number of implemented and proposed ontologies,
and the largest number of potential ontologies comes from the trillions
of dollars of legacy software. The total number is finite, but it is
sufficiently large that infinity is the only practical upper bound. (03)
BS
> Who will keep the N-squared mappings up to date, for an N that is
> increasing, if AGC gets his way, without limit? Who will pay for this
> ever increasing mapping effort? Who will oversee the mapping effort? (04)
The only reasonable solution is to provide automated methods for
discovering the mappings. Adolf Lindenbaum showed how to do that
over 80 years ago -- it's called the Lindenbaum lattice. (05)
For a brief survey, see Section 6 and 7 of the following paper: (06)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (09)
|