On Tue, December 18, 2012 3:26 pm, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> Yes indeed. Many ontology projects either have automated reasoning as a
If this read "Many projects which involve an ontology have/will have also
a requirement for a reasoner ..." I'd be happy. But ontologies and
reasoners are different things. It is plausible to include
"reasoner-suitability" as a criterion in evaluating ontologies, certainly.
> requirement now or they will in the future, as applications evolve and new
> applications arise to use/reuse the ontology.
>
> And explanation, a back-trace of how the reasoner arrived at its
> conclusions is, I think, necessary.
It's necessary for the reasoner, certainly. But, since an ontology is not
a reasoner, it's irrelevant for the purpose of evaluating ontologies. (01)
James Davenport
Lecturer on XX10190, CM30070, XX40211, and CM20215
Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology, University of Bath
OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor
IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication
Engineering & Science Board, Council of the British Computer Society
Director of Studies, HPC Doctoral Taught Course Centre
Federal Council, International Foundation for Computational Logic (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (03)
|