On 2/11/2012 1:10 PM, Mike Bennett wrote:
> The reason I introduced these points was to consider the
> implications, for ontology quality (with specific reference to
> large systems, natural and engineered), of the different
> micro-theories that people bring to the exercise.
>
> I hope that was clear. (01)
Yes, that idea has come across in this huge number of messages
on the ontology-summit list. (02)
But these issues have been debated in AI related conferences,
workshops, and email lists for over 20 years. And they've been
debated in the philosophical literature for over 2000 years. (03)
As Yogi Berra said, it's deja vu all over again, and again, and... (04)
Unfortunately, people working in mainstream IT have come to the
conclusion that ontology is for debating societies, not for
anybody who has real work to do. (05)
I'm all in favor of quality. But as I said in an earlier note,
the quality of an ontology is irrelevant to (and more often
inversely proportional to) its usage. (06)
If that point is ignored, nothing else matters. (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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|