Great paper John, always like to find fans of Aristotle's categories.
Interoperability is the key, single solutions get hung up on issues of
ownership and funding. We learnt this with the eOTD which now includes over
2.6 million concepts and more are being added every day. Many are clearly
unnecessary duplicates and most are poorly defined but that is the way of
the world. Creating a single model to publish the terminology with
provenance and assigning public domain identifiers to concepts and
associated terminology was a major step forward in providing a tool to make
concept mapping and communication easier. Letting the users decide what is
the "best" terminology and publishing usage rankings is a far easier
solution than trying to manage a committee of grey beards trying to decide
on what is the "best" or the "right" solution. We also publish mini
ontologies in the form of data requirement statements using ISO 22745-30,
there are over 40,000 of these in the ECCMA Data Requirement Registry (eDRR)
many of these came from the NATO Identification Guides. These are used as
cataloging templates to collect the data necessary to describe an item that
belongs to a class. There are literally hundreds of millions of items
described using this simple technology which is at the heart of a whole
industry composed of thousands of individuals around the world engaged in
cleansing data. (01)
The practical reality is that today interoperability is based on manual
concept mapping and using a common dictionary is a great step forward we are
counting on you and your collegues to deliver on the promise of automated
methods for discovering the mappings. (02)
Peter (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:50 AM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Official Communique Feedback Thread (04)
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". (05)
Yes, indeed. (06)
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. (07)
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? (08)
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. (09)
For a brief survey, see Section 6 and 7 of the following paper: (010)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (013)
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)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|