Dear John, (01)
We seem to be in violent agreement. (02)
> 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. (03)
MW: That is exactly why I said that you need to evaluate an ontology against
the requirements. Different ontologies for the same thing will quite
possibly be suitable for one set of requirements but not another. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (06)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (07)
> Dear Matthew,
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Other applications require axioms for detailed reasoning. But
> different applications may use inconsistent approximations -- for
> example, axioms for subsonic air flow vs. supersonic flow.
>
> > MW: Ontologies are just a possible component in all this.
> > Not an end in themselves.
>
> 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.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (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)
|