On 12 Dec 2012, at 17:44, John F Sowa wrote:
> Unfortunately, I can't call in to the telecon on Thursday.
> But I'd like make some comments. I'll start with a general comment
> about Michael's list of topics: None of them mention successful
> applications of ontology to mission-critical applications.
> I am not asking for presentations *about* applications. But examples
> and use cases *derived from* practical experience are far, far more
> valuable than abstract notions of what might be theoretically useful.
> I sent a related comment to the IAOA list:
>> Suggestion: We should gather a list of *successful* cases or,
>> more specifically, *deployed* systems that implement an ontology
>> that is in daily use for mission-critical applications.
>> If we had such a list (with URLs for detailed documentation), we
>> could analyze them to determine the criteria that distinguish
>> practical applications of ontology from wishful thinking.
> This suggestion generated one response (copy below).
> I agree with Nicola on many points, but I have some serious concerns
> about some assumptions that I believe are unrealistic.
>> In the past, I have isolated and discussed such criteria: precision,
>> completeness, accuracy. See
>> Why Evaluate Ontology Technology? Because it Works!
> From Nicola's concluding slide:
>> Underspecification: simplicity encourages reusability but risks
>> to decrease interoperability.
> No! Underspecification is *essential* for interoperability. For
> examples, just look at the GoodRelations ontology, which is widely
> used and has been adopted for Schema.org
by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo,
> and Yandex. That ontology defines a set of terms with a bare minimum
> of details -- and it *maximizes* interoperability.