Dear Matthew, (01)
The only difference between your points and mine is in the clause
"it all has one purpose." I agree that the general purpose of any
ontology is to improve information quality. But the many layers
and networks require different details of different subjects. (02)
> MW: It is the purpose of IT to deliver information to the enterprise,
> there are technology layers with information at the top, databases,
> applications, and ontologies in the middle, and hardware, networks etc
> at the bottom (simplified of course). But it all has one purpose, and
> any part of it can be judged in the same way: how does it contribute
> to information quality. (03)
A few years ago, I spoke with some of the PowerSet developers,
who had access to the full Cyc ontology and all the Cyc software.
But they said that the only part they found useful for NLP was
the Cyc type hierarchy and the mappings to and from English. (04)
Other applications require axioms for detailed reasoning. But
different applications may use inconsistent approximations --
for example, axioms for subsonic air flow vs. supersonic flow. (05)
> MW: Ontologies are just a possible component in all this.
> Not an end in themselves. (06)
That is why it's impossible to evaluate an ontology in isolation.
Some are clearly bad for many reasons. But others can be useful
for one kind of application, but horrible for another. (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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|